Developing an Advocacy Program

Developing a Progressive Advocacy Program Within a Human

Services Agency

Linda Plitt Donaldson, PhD

ABSTRACT. This paper brings together knowledge from research and practice to suggest a set of building blocks on which a progressive advo- cacy program could be developed within a human services agency. Pro- gressive advocacy is defined as advocacy motivated primarily by a desire for social change that addresses underlying structural and power inequi- ties that includes methods to meaningfully engage agency clients or con- stituents in all aspects ofthe advocacy process. The paper concludes with a case study showing the development of an advocacy program within a nonprofit homeless services agency and discusses the constraints on its development. Implications for research, education, and practice are also discussed. doi:10.1300/J147v32n02_03 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: l-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2008 by the Haworth Press. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Advocacy, nonprofit, human services, leadership, em- powerment, social change

INTRODUCTION

Since the emergence of the charity organization societies in the late 1800s, nonprofit human service agencies have been the cornerstone of the U.S. response to community needs. The common image of nonprofit

Linda Plitt Donaldson is Assistant Professor, Catholic University of America, National Catholic School of Social Service, 620 Michigan Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20064.

Administration in Social Work, Vol. 32(2) 2008 Available online at http://asw.haworthpress.com

© 2008 by The Haworth Press. Ail rights reserved. doi:l0.1300/J147v32n02_03 25

26 ADMINISTRA TION ¡N SOCIAL WORK

human service agencies as providers of shelter, food, clothing, and other forms of treatment for the symptoms of intractable social problems over- shadows their important history as social change agents. For example, the poverty movement, battered women's movement, and gay rights move- ment were enabled by the participation of nonprofit agencies that served the needs of those groups. This skewed view of nonprofits as purveyors of charity but not justice may lead important agency stakeholders like do- nors. Boards, Executive Directors, and staff, to the conclusion that ad- vocacy practice is neither worthwhile nor appropriate as a core function for human service agencies.

The purpose of this paper is to stimulate a greater understanding of the role and purpose of advocacy as a distinct program within a human service agency and to lay out a framework for developing one. Advo- cacy is defined as "any attempt to influence the decisions of any institu- tional elite on behalf of a collective interest" (Jenkins, 1987, p. 197). The term progressive advocacy practice refers to advocacy that (1) seeks to address underlying structural and power inequities as distinct from ad- vocacy motivated by organizational interest, and (2) applies strategies that meaningfully engage clients or constituents in all aspects of the ad- vocacy process.

The paper begins by attempting to deepen the rationale for nonprofit human service agency advocacy practice by framing it in the context of a public policy making theory. After framing the context, the paper of- fers a set of core practice principles and building blocks for developing a progressive advocacy program within a human services agency fol- lowed by a case study illustiating the development of an advocacy pro- gram within a nonprofit multi-service agency serving people who are homeless. Although the agency does not achieve the ideal progressive advocacy model, its constraints demonstrate the challenges embedded in developing such a program. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for social work research, education, and practice.

RATIONALE FOR ADVOCACY PRACTICE WITHIN A HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

Because of the front line nature of social work practice in nonprofit settings, the social work profession has a powerful opportunity to assist nonprofit human services agencies integrate progressive advocacy func- tions into their work. The profession's ethical obligation (NASW, 1996) to

Linda Plitt Donaldson 27

engage in advocacy practice arises from the fact that the populations they serve are disproportionately reliant on government-funded social services. Furthermore, the degree to which these services do not meet sufficient measures of equity and adequacy have grave consequences for the quality of life of families and individuals in need. In addition, given their direct experience with addressing human needs, social ser- vice agencies have a unique perspective to speak authoritatively about the root causes of social problems, and they have access to the true ex- perts on the solutions to social problems, their clients, or as they are re- ferred to in this paper, their constituents.

Trends in public policy making and social service delivery support the need for nonprofit human service agencies to leverage the knowl- edge and expertise of their constituents and staff to advocate for social justice. The devolutionary trend of public policy making from federal to state and local governments may make the policy-making process more accessible to community-based agencies as local decision-makers are physically located closer to them as compared to federal policy decision- makers. However, devolving policy making to local governments typi- cally goes hand-in-hand with budget cuts or block grants which freeze funding levels and therefore require states and nonprofit agencies to do more with less during recessions, natural disasters, or other catastrophic events that may cause an increase in the demand for social services and support. Furthermore, in an environment of scarce and diminishing re- sources (exacerbated by the War in Iraq and the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast), advocates for safety net programs often compete with each other for funding, and also compete with other interests with greater power, privilege, and resources. Consequently, social workers must work even harder to unify and mobilize themselves and their constituents to advance more equitable systems without being pitted against each other. Finally, the privatization and commercialization of social services add greater complexity to the policy advocacy process in two ways. First, agencies advocating to change policies of the implementing agency may be challenging peer agencies and thereby straining pre-existing inter-agency relationships. Second, privatization may add an extra level of bureaucracy to the policy advocacy process, as advocates may need to first meet with third-party contractor decision-makers prior to gov- ernment decision-makers in the process of achieving a desired reform.

Despite these compelling reasons, it is unclear how many human service agencies actually engage in advocacy activities. In 1998, only 1.5% of public charities reported lobbying expenses (Boris & Krehely, 2002), but lobbying is just one among many types of activities

28 ADMINISTRA TION IN SOCIAL WORK

included in advocacy practice. Advocacy also includes tasks such as, educating, skill-^building, mobilizing, organizing, researching, analyzing, letter-writing, protesting, petitioning, awakening power, building relation- ships, convening, facilitating, etc., and most of these tasks never cross the line to the legal definition of lobbying or grassroots lobbying (Avner, 2004; Alliance for Justice, 2004), therefore, nonprofit agencies have a lot of opportunity to advance a social change agenda without engaging in lobbying. •

Another unresolved question in the literature that examines nonprofit advocacy is the extent to which agency advocacy behavior is motivated by self or agency-interest, for example, to protect funding sources, or do agencies have a broader purpose to their advocacy agenda that includes addressing structural and power inequities. The answer to these questions is usually not an either/or, and advocacy can certainly be done to serve both purposes. However, the answer to these questions might influence the strategies and tactics agencies use in their advocacy practice, that is, whether or not the agency engages in progressive advocacy, or advocacy that is mostly expert-driven and motivated primarily by agency-interest.

The Policy Cycle as Rationale for Institutionalized Advocacy Practice

Human services advocacy practice has been described as a peripheral function typically characterized as "ad hoc" and " i n e p t . . . lacking con- tinuity and coherence" (Gibelman & Kraft, 1996, p. 49). Howlett and Ramesh (2003) present a five-stage model of the policy cycle that includes: (1) agenda-setting; (2) policy formulation; (3) policy decision-making; (4) policy implementation; and (5) policy evaluation. Understanding the tedious and complex nature of these five stages gives insight on why ad hoc approaches to advocacy simply will not make the systemic changes necessary for reforrn, and therefore provides some rationale for struc- turing a human services advocacy program with dedicated staff and resources.

For example, Kingdon (1995) and Jansson (2003) describe an agenda- setting process where three "streams" converge and push a policy idea through a window of opportunity, placing it on a shortlist for policy consideration. These streams include:

• a problem stream, where social issues come to the consciousness of policy makers through agitation by a constituent or constituency group, or by an event that focuses the nation's or a jurisdiction's

Linda Plitt Donaldson 29

attention on a social concern. For example, Hurricane Katrina has focused the attention of the nation on the intersection of race, class, and poverty in a way that hasn't entered the consciousness of the dominant culture since the 1960s;

• a political stream, where the sentiment of the general public, or change in political actors through the election cycles generate a shift in values and/or priorities that might support a particular pol- icy position;

• a policy stream, in which policy experts generate a series of feasi- ble options to address a recognized public problem.

In an effort to facilitate the flow of complementary issues and policy options down their respective streams, Kingdon (1995) describes the "policy entrepreneur" (p. 179) who is an important actor, or set of actors working together, to put an issue into the public consciousness, often through a media strategy, to shape or bend public opinion toward their view of the social problem and potential solutions. In addition, policy entrepreneurs should also be working with policy actors at think tanks, universities, government administrations, and within their own coali- tions to develop one or more policy solutions that are technically feasi- ble and that anticipate and respond to constraints that may be raised by policy decision-makers. Consequently, a policy entrepreneur's job is to facilitate the development of: problems into public issues; policy ideas into feasible policy solutions; and a fractured political climate into one that is disposed to one's policy position. All of these simultaneous ef- forts require an enormous amount of relationship-building with many and varied actors within and on the fringes of the public making policy process to get an issue on the short list of policy decision-makers.

Furthermore, after getting the issue on the short list for consideration, the policy entrepreneur's work continues in the political stream. For ex- ample, in the case of legislation, the policy entrepreneur must continue to work the various in and out-flows in the legislative process to ensure that support for the bill'grows, that House and Senate committees schedule hearings for and votes on the bill, that it gets reported out of committee, and gets scheduled for a floor debate. While the bill is moving through the legislative branch, the policy entrepreneur needs to ensure that it will not get vetoed when and if it gets to the President or the Governor. Be- fore and once a bill is passed and signed, the policy entrepreneur must work with the administrative branch and the bill supporters to ensure that regulations are properly written, implemented, and enforced while monitoring unintended and potentially damaging consequences. Even if

30 ADMINISTRA TION IN SOCIAL WORK

the law is implemented successfully, policy entrepreneurs and their al- lies must continue to ensure that programs created from the law are given proper funding and support each year.

These policy cycle activities do not even include the important tasks of constituent organizing or reflection activities that are integral to progres- sive advocacy practice. Therefore, this greater understanding of what's involved in policy change may give evidence to the need for agencies to invest in full-time staff and resources to support advocacy practice. If such agency activities are continued as an add-on responsibility of Ex- ecutive Directors or Development Directors advocacy will continue to result in ad hoc, reactive approaches which often serve to maintain ex- isting systems that perpetuate human suffering.

CORE PRACTICE PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPING AN AD VOCACY PROGRAM

No single framework exists for institutionalizing a progressive advo- cacy program within a human services agency. Developing such a pro- gram depends on a variety of internal and external factors, including: the organization's lifecycle stage; the values and philosophies of agency stakeholders (board, staff, volunteer, community, constituents); organi- zational structure; agency mission; and the agency's external political and economic contexts. Therefore, different strategies will be required for moving an agency along the continuum from social service to pro- gressive advocacy practice based on those factors. For example, the de- velopmental issues described by Stevens (2001) in her seven-stage nonprofit hfecycle model is a useful tool for managers and capacity- builders to consider, in relation to other contextual factors, when integrat- ing and deepening building blocks for a progressive advocacy program. Similarly, different models of integrating social service and social change functions will also emerge. For example, social service agencies may wish to partner with a grassroots community organizing project to en- gage and mobilize their constituents rather than build internal capacity for organizing. However, some universal core practice principles for de- veloping a progressive advocacy program are:

• Start Where the Agency Is: In direct social work practice, clinicians stress the principle of "starting where the client is" (Hepworth, Rooney, & Larsen, 2002, p. 49), based on research showing that

Linda Plitt Donaldson 31

client readiness for change is an important consideration in the helping process. This same principle holds true in efforts to engage organizations in change, particularly when introducing programs that seek social change which may challenge stakeholder percep- tions of the mission and puipose of human service agencies and expose real or perceived vulnerabilities to funders.

A starting point for many human service agencies consider- ing advocacy as a core function is one of providing direct services only, such as emergency services or mental health services. To be- gin moving further along the continuum toward a social service agency with fully-integrated progressive advocacy program, one must do a thorough assessment of the organization's readiness for change and develop a strategy according to a particular change model. Appendix lists some characteristics of an ideal human ser- vices agency with a fully integrated progressive advocacy program. However, the view of what is ideal is subjective and that ideal end- point is part of the agency assessment process. Leverage Knowledge and Expertise of Service Program Staff: Good advocacy is grounded in agency service and constituent experi- ences. Therefore, it is incumbent on the advocacy staff to ensure that their advocacy is being done in support of and in coordination with the service programs by communicating regularly with ser- vice staff through meetings or e-mail to share information and to engage them in advocacy activities. Leverage the Knowledge and Expertise of Constituents: The great- est social change resource of any human service agency is its constituents. Most agency constituents know more about social prob- lems than people with formal education but no experience living with those issues. In addition, agency constituents also have ideas for solutions that are grounded in real community and life experi- ence and therefore have more meaning and practical application. Work in Coalitions: In addition to being a building block for devel- oping an advocacy program, working in coalitions is an important principle to consider when developing an advocacy program. Join- ing a coalition is often a first step to agency engagement in advo- cacy. Agency leadership beginning to explore integrating advocacy as a core function often think of attending a monthly coalition meet- ing as a low-investment toward learning the policy issues. Only Practice Advocacy in Agency's A rea of Expertise: As agencies become known for their advocacy work and policy positions, they may be asked to speak about areas that are related to but beyond

32 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

their areas of expertise. In such cases, agencies should resist the temptation to give visibility to their agency by responding affir- matively to such requests. It is more important to be authentic and true to your area of competence and share opportunities for visibil- ity with complementary agencies.

These core principles form the foundation for the building blocks that comprise a progressive advocacy program within a human services agency. These building blocks are discussed in the next section.

BUILDING BLOCKS FOR DEVELOPING AN ADVOCACY PROGRAM

WITHIN A HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY

The following framework describes the building blocks for a pro- gressive advocacy program within a human service agency. The build- ing blocks do not have to be put down in the order in which they are depicted in Figure 1. Consequently, they are not assigned numbers to help convey the idea that they can be swapped out and rearranged based on an agency's individual context. For example, the building blocks, as depicted, might convey that agency leadership that is supportive of pro- gressive advocacy is the foundation for a strong advocacy program. In fact, the literature shows that agency leadership is an important predictor of nonprofit advocacy practice. However, some agencies may find that meaningful opportunities to reflect on the structural causes that bring people in for services form the early foundation for an agency's pro- gressive advocacy practice.

Moreover, the building blocks should not infer that functions should be done internal to the agency. For example, an agency may want to bring in a consultant to facilitate reflections with staff and volunteers or part- ner with a grassroots community organizing group to engage constitu- ents in social change activities. What are important are the functions, not whether they are done internal to agency or in partnership with an external agency. Finally, Figure 1 shows the building blocks in 3-D to convey the idea that there are degrees of depth or solidity to each block. For example, an agency whose constituent involvement includes a single seat on the Board and one opportunity per year to give input on agency priorities might reflect a thin or fairly hollow building block, as compared to an agency with a fully developed community organizing program.

Linda Pütt Donaldson 33

FIGURE 1. Building Blocks* for Developing a Progressive Advocacy Program in a Human Services Agency

Regular Opportunities for Reflection

* Institutionalized Practices for Meaningful Constituent Involvement

Active and Meaningful Participation in Coalitions

Full-Time Staff Devoted to Advocacy

Diversified Funding Portfolio

Agency Leadership Fully Supportive of Progressive , Alvocacy Activities

*A core practice principle in developing a progressive advocacy program is to meet the agency where it is. Therefore:

• Building blocks can be developed in any order, simultaneously, and to varying degrees;

• In reality, building blocks are always evolving and getting stronger, deeper, and more solid over time;

• Building blocks do not have to exist internal to the agency, e.g., agencies may partner with an organizing project to actively and meaningfully engage constituents in social change rather than have a CO program internal to the agency.

34 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Description of Building Blocks

• Advocacy Leadership Fully Supportive of Progressive Advocacy Activities: Leadership is a critical factor for transforming nonprofit social service agencies into agents of social change (OMBWatch, 2002; Cohen, 2001; Donaldson, 2004). Gibelman and Kraft (1996) stated that "leadership, vision, and commitment on the part of the social welfare managers, etc are critical ingredients for building the necessary foundation for effective advocacy" (p. 57). Salamon (1995) suggested that another factor influencing agency advocacy behavior is "leadership that seeks to return agencies to their advo- cacy roots" (p. 15). Saidel and Harlan (1998) found that leadership was a key factor influencing the advocacy activities of an organi- zation, and De Vita et al. (2004) identiñed leadership as the link between an organization's capacity and its policy activities.

• Leadership, whether it is the Board of Directors, the Executive Di- rector, and/or the senior management team, needs to believe in the importance of advocacy, partly because it is so difficult to see its effects in the short term. Support from agency leadership can be demonstrated by having advocacy functions written into the mis- sion statement, vision statement, and goals ofthe agency, structur- ing them with dedicated staff, and having a Board public policy to enhance and support the advocacy functions of the agency.

• Diversified Funding Portfolio: As local governments continue to try to reduce costs through privatization and contracting out social service functions, human service agencies are becoming more reliant

' on government funding. The literature is divided on whether or not government funding impedes or enhances advocacy. Some research shows that government funding enhances advocacy (Donaldson, 2004; Kramer, 1994, 1985; Salamon, 1995; OMBWatch, 2002; McCarthy & Castelli, 1997; Sosin, 1986; Gronbjerg, 1993). Other scholars find that government funding curbs agency advocacy be- havior (Smith & Lipsky, 1993; Wolch, 1990; Alexander, Nank, & Stivers, 1999; O'Connell, 1994; Wong, 1993; Reinelt, 1994; Hudson, 1998a; Epstein, 1981). A critique of these studies is that none teases out the motivation for the advocacy, that is, whether it is motivated by self-interest (organizational survival) or to create a more inclusive and just society (progressive advocacy). Either way, multiple fund- ing sources contribute to greater agency autonomy.

• Full-Time Staff Devoted to Advocacy: The activities associated with the policy cycle and constituency organizing offer a strong

Linda Plitt Donaldson 35

rationale for agencies to dedicate full-time staff to such activities. As mentioned above, most human service agency advocacy activi- ties are done as an add-on and often unwritten functions of a pre-existing staff position, for example, the Executive Director, a Program Officer, or Resource Developer. When an agency's only advocacy activities are embedded within another position, those activities tend to be ad hoc and unsystematic, and can be demoraliz- ing and overwhelming to the staff person doing them. An agency can be stuck in this phase for many years as it educates board mem- bers about the importance of advocacy, and fundraises for an advo- cacy position. Some agencies may even feel sufficiently satisfied at this level of advocacy activity. However, to move agency advocacy practice beyond an ad hoc stage, agencies must hire at least one full-time person experienced in advocacy and social change practice and may be more, depending on various factors including the size of the agency, the variety of service programs offered, and the viability of issue coalitions, and other internal and external conditions. Until the philanthropic community embraces their role in funding advocacy and other social change actiyities, agencies will most likely need to fund progressive advocacy practice through their general operat- ing budget. Activities complementary to progressive advocacy that may be more palatable to grant makers are those associated with civic engagement, leadership development, and community devel- opment. Active and Meaningful Participation in Coalitions: Human service agencies and their constituents are competing with special interests with much greater financial resources and therefore easier access to policy decision-makers. Human service agencies can demonstrate power by building coalitions, which can be a terrific means for col- lective strategizing and advocacy practice. Coalitions have the benefit of pooling the resources of its members to lessen the burden on any one; they provide cover from potential retribution by the advocacy target, and also filter the avalanche of information received through the growing mass of media sources. Numerous studies detail the importance of coalitions for advocacy (Kaufman, 2001; Libby & Austin, 2002; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001 ; Nelson, 1994; Roberts- DeGennaro, 1997; Tefft, 1987). Mizrahi and Rosenthal (2001) iden- tified four key success factors for coalitions: competent leadership, commitment, contribution, and conditions. Consequently, partici- pation in coalitions should support the flourishing of these fo.ur characteristics.

36 ADMINISTRA TION IN SOCIAL WORK

• Institutionalized Practices for Meaningful Constituent Involvement: More research is needed to assess the degree to which even agen- cies that value advocacy as a core function engage its constituents in those efforts. One typology of advocacy strategies (Donaldson, 2004) categorizes them as elite, mass, or empowerment. Elite strate- gies are those in which agency staff visit elected officials, partici- pate in policy working groups, and represent agency at coalitions. Mass strategies involve things like petitioning, protesting, rallying, letter-writing, and civil disobedience. Empowerment strategies in- clude skill-building and educating agency constituents; engaging them in building agency advocacy agenda; providing transportation for advocacy activities, and so on. In this study of 43 human service agencies, even agencies that engaged in advocacy seldom used empowerment strategies in their practice. The choice of elite over empowerment strategies may be rooted in a variety of pragmatic considerations. Use of all strategies is important, but meaningful constituent engagement is a crucial component of progressive ad- vocacy practice.

• Regular Opportunities for Reflection: Reflective practice is a term used by multiple disciplines to describe a process where practitioners meet together regularly to critically examine the theories, values, norms, and current contexts underlying their practice and how they inform the practice models and techniques they use. Although more research is needed which examines the role of reflection in transforming agency cultures from social service to social change, regular opportunities for staff, volunteers, and constituents to re- flect together on the structural inequities and -isms at the root of human needs may raise consciousness about the need for institu- tionalized progressive advocacy practice at the agency.

MOVING FROM SOCIAL SERVICE TO SOCIAL JUSTICE: A CASE STUDY

The road toward building on social service to affect social change is different for every agency depending on a variety of internal and exter- nal factors. This case study of how an agency developed an advocacy program does not end with an agency that meets the ideal, but one that reached its peak advocacy capacity in terms of its internal and external constraints and is still evolving today. Despite the constraints, the agency

Linda Plitt Donaldson 37

grew from one with an ad hoc advocacy program to one with an institu- tionalized program that included constituent involvement.

Agency Context and Birth of Advocacy Program

In 1993, Hope for the Homeless (HH)^ was a 23-year-old community- based homeless services agency located in an eastern urban center with a population of roughly 500,000 people. Between 1970 and 1993, the agency's services expanded to address a range of needs for people who were homeless, including substance abuse treatment, housing, medical and dental services, socialization programs for the elderly, and services for people with mental illness. By 1993, the agency operated more than 20 programs, employed more than 100 full-time staff, benefited from thousands of volunteers, and was supported by a multi-million dollar budget from diverse sources. In 1993, more than 80% of its budget was supported through private sources, including individual donations, church contributions, and private foundations.

In 1978, although HH is a secular organization, not associated with the local Catholic archdiocese, the founding Executive Director was re- placed by a Catholic priest with a Master's in Social Work, years of ex- perience running social service programs, and deeply held values for social justice. Moreover, he was a very savvy fund-raiser and was able to leverage his non-secular persona to raise money and volunteer sup- port. Under his leadership, the agency grew from a soup kitchen with one full-time staff person and two volunteers to a comprehensive, multi- million dollar social services agency for people who are homeless.

In November 1993, a social worker with an advocacy/organizing in- terest was hired to provide direct services to residents in one of HH's long-term single room occupancy (SRO) housing programs. The SRO rents were subsidized through a local Section 8 program called the Ten- ant Assistance program (TAP). Within six months, the residents began receiving notices that the TAP program was being cut, so rent subsidies would no longer be available, and consequently all 93 residents of the program were at risk of returning to homelessness. The story of how the residents organized and successfully saved the TAP program is docu- mented elsewhere (Donaldson, 2004). However, an outcome ofthe Save TAP campaign was the formation of a grassroots organizing group called Citizens About Real Empowerment. Through the rest of her employ- ment in the SRO, the social worker met weekly with CARE, and with the help of HH's legislative aide, conducted a series of political education workshops. Following the political education workshops, CARE took

38 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

on several other grassroots organizing activities, including establishing an orange hat patrol, saving a bus line, and testifying on numerous other issues associated with homelessness and poverty. The formation of ,CARE was one way in which HH institutionalized constituent involve- ment in advocacy.

In the summer of 1995, the SRO social worker moved into the legis- lative aid position and negotiated new responsibilities for the position that were solely related to advocacy practice, and the position was re-ti- tled. Advocacy Coordinator (AC). The Executive Director fully sup- ported more sustained advocacy efforts and gave the AC a great deal of autonomy in selecting the issues in which the agency would engage. Furthermore, he supported her continued work with CARE. Conse- quently, the advocacy program at HH was born out of the confluence of four key factors:

1. Agency leadership (embodied in the ED) valuing and supporting the role of advocacy as a core function;

2. An experienced and passionate staff person dedicated full-time to advocacy and empowerment practice;

3. A growing rate of homelessness and undeniable needs that required systemic change only affected through advocacy and organizing;

4. Documentation of need through the service experiences of the agency enabling the AC to leverage the knowledge, expertise, and statistics of the various agency programs to support advocacy ar- guments.

Elynn (1992) writes that "advocacy capability must be developed over time," and leadership that valued advocacy and investment in a full- time position were essential to the birth ofthe advocacy program. How- ever, the AC had a lot to do to begin growing the program, and her steps in growing the capacity of the program are detailed below.

Developing the Advocaey Program

Developing organizational capacity can include hiring staff, raising money, finding volunteers, buying technology, organizing constituents, and developing knowledge and skills. The initial focus of developing the advocacy program centered around gaining knowledge about the political landscape to better understand the key elected and appointed city officials, and the personalities in and history ofthe key stakeholder groups engaged in advocacy around homelessness and poverty. To gain

Linda Plitt Donaldson 39

this knowledge, the AC engaged in a series of activities over the first 3-6 months.

• Surveyed Political Landscape

o Met with seasoned advocates who had years of experience engag- ing elected and appointed leaders and working in coalitions. These advocates educated her about the personalities and idio- syncrasies of the key players. Knowing more about the personali- ties of elected and appointed officials was very important in tailoring advocacy messages; understanding the formal and infor- mal communications channels associated with particular offices or positions; coordinating the right composition of an advocacy team for office visits, and so on. In addition, their knowledge of coalition politics was helpful to avoid getting caught in political confiicts rooted in coalition history and personality differences.

° Met with all Council members and/or their human services legis- lative aides, and some Executive agency staff. The primary and stated purpose of these meetings was to reintroduce key political actors to HH and its new advocacy staff person. The secondary and unstated purpose of these meetings was to build relationships and to gain first-hand experience with the government officials working with issues of homelessness and poverty.

o Regularly Attended and Became Active in Key Coalition Meet- ings. The AC immediately began to attend key coalition meet- ings, and was careful to mostly listen to ideas and initiatives to get a sense of the coalition dynamics. In the end, tasks support- ing the agenda of the key coalitions became the focus of much of the work of the AC, particularly as they converged with the priori- ties of CARE and the work of the agency.

• Surveyed Media Landscape. The AC began to pay careful attention to stories and editorials related to homelessness and poverty that ap- peared in the primary print media. She created a filing system to clip and save relevant news articles, and stored in her rolodex the names and contact information of various reporters who covered home- lessness and poverty issues. These contacts were useful when trying to engage media in coalition or agency-planned actions.

• The AC also planned to listen (and sometimes call in) to a weekly local radio show specifically geared toward local politics where de- cision-makers were often guests and they or their staff were known to be part of the listening audience. Coalition partners were useful

40 ADMINISTRA TION IN SOCIAL WORK

in monitoring numerous media outlets, including community and ethnic newspapers, and local TV news stations.

• Negotiated Investment in Technology. In 1995, Internet and e-mail • capacity was limited to one or two staff people who needed this

technology to transfer funds or do fund-raising. Arguing that e-mail and Internet access would increase productivity and effectiveness of advocacy efforts, the AC was able to secure the installation of a line to her computer and split the cost of her personal e-mail account with the agency to use it for advocacy activities. A few years later, the agency invested in this technology for the entire agency.

Modest Expansion of the Advocacy Program

The above activities describe the initial steps taken as HH's advocacy program emerged. In 1998, the AC assumed additional responsibilities related to direct services, but was able to negotiate hiring another full- time staff person in the Advocacy Department to work with CARE and expand coverage on issues. In August 2000, the Advocacy Department started a social justice program to conduct facilitated exchanges with agency volunteers who served meals in the dining room. The objective of the Social Justice Program was to help volunteers reflect on the struc- tural inequities at the core of the condition of the homelessness they witnessed in the dining room. The Social Justice Coordinator (SJC) de- veloped a series of reflections around various topics related to homeless and the agency experience. The advocacy staff hoped that volunteers could be mobilized to support the social change activities of the Advo- cacy Department, but these hopes did not materialize for a variety of reasons discussed later in the paper. In addition to engaging dining room volunteers in reflections, the SJC conducted educational workshops out- side the agency and with new staff as part of their employee orientation.

The social worker who developed HH's advocacy program left the agency in August 2003, but the department continued to be led by a committed and competent social worker. In a subsequent strategic plan- ning process, advocacy emerged as a top priority for agency investment and support. The growth of the advocacy department at HH is a testament to the agency's commitment to supporting advocacy as a core agency function. By 2003, the staff included 2.5 full-time staff, including one person working part-time with CARE. This staff enabled the active in- volvement and often leadership in a number of coalitions across the city and facilitated the work of CARE to effect change in local housing authority policies. In addition, the SJC was able to conduct hundreds of

Linda Plitt Donaldson 41

facilitated reflections with volunteer and community groups on issues of poverty and homelessness. The positive evaluations from those work- shops demonstrated that they provoked critical thinking on the issues among the participants, although the long-term and transformative out- comes of those reflection opportunities are not known. In spite of the overall success of the department, advocacy practice had not yet reached an ideal model, and some of the limitations in achieving that ideal are described below.

LIMITATIONS ON ACHIEVING PROGRESSIVE ADVOCACY PROGRAM

The case study shows how a homeless services agency integrated ad- vocacy practice as a core departmental function. However, although it contained the six building blocks of a progressive advocacy program, several factors prevented the building blocks from reaching their full depth, thereby limiting the extent to which the department fully represented a progressive advocacy program. Each of these factors is described below.

Need for Greater Leadership Commitment

The existence of an advocacy program reflects the support of the Ex- ecutive Director and the senior management team. From 1993 to 2003, the Board never appeared interested in the agency's advocacy activities and staff perceived this to be positive given the Board composition. For example, some perceived the Board as fully embracing HH's charity role, but much less comfortable with a social change role. The Board's faith and trust in the ED allowed him to give resources to this function with very little explanation. While the lack of Board involvement helped to stave off objections to the advocacy work, it also prevented the leverag- ing of the contacts and resources of individual Board members. Prior to 2003, advocacy was never reflected in the agency mission, vision, or value statements. However, after a 2003-2004 strategic planning pro- cess, "advocacy on behalf of the poor" and "empowering the people we serve" were listed as agency values. One might observe that the phrase "advocacy on behalf of the poor" reflects a paternalistic lens toward cli- ents rather than a lens equal partnership and responsibility for social change.

42 ADMINISTRA TION IN SOCIAL WORK

More Investment in Constituency Engagement

Over the years, a general hesitancy by the leadership to fully embrace, support, and unleash the power of agency constituency was demon- strated in the low resources given to develop CARE membership (half- time staff), and the degree of internal advocacy required to maintain agency support for CARE as a mechanism to develop constituent lead- ership and political involvement. Efforts to expand and institutionalize constituent involvement agency-wide throughout all programs was con- tinually not supported by agency leadership. For example, the AC sub- mitted a concept paper for an agency-wide program where each agency program would run a political education group where program partici- pants could gather to share grievances and work collectively to address them. The concept paper included a timeline for implementation and de- scribed the power that such an effort could yield, but the Executive Di- rector did not see the value it would bring to the agency for the required investment. Despite repeated efforts to phase in an integrated constituent engagement program throughout agency programs, those efforts failed in the face of competing agency priorities and limited resources.

Vulnerability to Eunders

In addition, although agency leadership gave the advocacy department tremendous autonomy in selecting and framing the issues it worked on, leadership also asked the department to engage in advocacy to address agency interests, for example, protecting funding or adverse effects from proposed legislation or regulations. Over the years, the advocacy department would come under closer scrutiny and tighter control b y . agency leadership when the advocacy department targeted its efforts against potential funding sources. Even though the agency had highly diverse funding sources, it still felt hesitant about "biting the hand that fed it," even if the portions were quite small.

Small Department Relative to Agency Size and Diversity of Constituent Needs

By the time the founding advocacy director left, the department had grown to include 21/2 full-time staff, and a program budget of roughly $150,000, approximately 1.5% of the agency's $10 million operating budget. Only one of the staff was doing advocacy full-time, the other full- time staff person split her time between CARE and the Social Justice

Linda Plitt Donaldson 43

program. The Advocacy Director worked half-time doing advocacy while supervising other programs, including an emerging housing de- velopment department. Consequently, for a large agency with more than 30 programs, additional staff were needed to adequately address all of the issues experienced by the entire agency's Constituency. For example, although the agency was active in numerous coalitions or working groups related to homelessness, housing, health care, substance abuse treatment, and income security, it was not active in coalitions for the elderly, men- tal health, workforce development, and many other iireas that intersect with homelessness. Additional staff were needed to actively participate and drive other advocacy priorities, and to also spend time meaningfully engaging constituents seeking services in all agency programs.

Minimal Opportunities for Reflection

The Advocacy Department envisioned offering social justice reflec- tions as a regular package of development workshops extended to agency staff. However, although new staff were asked to participate in one re- flection as part of their orientation, additional opportunities to reflect more deeply on homelessness were not provided as a regular option for staff based on a cost-benefit perception.

CONCLUSION

Developing an advocacy program in a human services program re- quires strong leadership, diverse funding sources, and full-time staff dedicated to advocacy. Achieving a progressive advocacy program re- quires agency commitment to awakening the power in the constituency it serves, strengthening it through leadership development, allowing con- stituent priorities to drive the agency's advocacy agenda, and building power through coalitions. Providing opportunities for staff, volunteers, and constituents to reflect on the advocacy practice and/or the conditions which bring about human need may re-energize movements, deepen understanding, and renew energy and creativity for the ongoing work of social change.

More research on each one of these factors as it relates to human ser- vice agency advocacy is needed. Possible research questions include: What leadership styles and characteristics lend themselves to integrating a progressive advocacy program at human service agencies? What meth- ods can be used to cultivate and nurture social change leaders? Does funding from local governments affect nonproflt human service advocacy

44 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

directed toward local policy decisions? Does funding source change the shape, motivation behind, and purpose of nonprofit human service advocacy? How do you integrate participatory decision-making models into social service and social change organizations in a way that advances task-centered goals? What is the best way to link community organizing and social service activities for social change? How do we evaluate advo- cacy and constituent development activities? Does reflection on under- lying causes of human needs truly create a commitment to social change practice within participants, and what are the factors that create that change? What are the stages in the organizational transformation process from social service to social change, and what does it take to move agen- cies along that continuum?

Research findings on organizational characteristics related to advocacy could be applied to developing social work and nonprofit management curricula that advance advocacy practices and inform the development of institutional models that support a mission of social justice. For ex- amples, social work curricula should include content on participatory decision-making, popular education, and other tools to help students learn how to meaningfully engage constituents in policy processes. Foundation year social work should include a course on policy practice that includes analyzing policies, developing an advocacy strategy, en- gaging in various tactics, and using media to advance advocacy mes- sages. The dual focus of the social work profession to service and justice should be stressed and infused throughout the foundation year. Social work students should learn about how racism and other forms of oppression have been constructed and discuss strategies to begin to de- construct these inequities through policy and organizational structures. Management courses should include content on transformational lead- ership (Burns, 1978) or other leadership styles that go beyond manage- ment and embrace leadership for a shared purpose. Implications for social work practice include the importance of nonprofit human service agency leadership to integrate and strengthen the building blocks for progressive advocacy practice. Social workers at entry and mid-levels should be prepared to advocate for and support efforts within their own agency to develop these building blocks.

Gibelman and Kraft (1996) stated that in light of government's ever- decreasing investment in social welfare programs, "advocacy needs to be institutionalized and strengthened as a program of service" (p. 43) more than ever. Social workers make up a large share ofthe staff employed by human service agencies. Consequently, social work educators have a responsibility to develop within social work students an appreciation

Linda Plitt Donaldson 45

for integrating direct service and macro practice functions. As the na- tion continues to shift its priorities and dollars away from domestic is- sues and toward global threats, the devolutionary trend of government service programs will only worsen. Social work educators and others who care about social justice must act now to prepare those working with disenfranchised populations how to argue for policies and pro- grams that uplift and empower people.

NOTES

1. Direct lobbying involves communicating directly with a policy decision-maker to express an opinion about specific or proposed legislation. Grassroots lobbying in- volves communicating the agency's opinion about specific or proposed legislation to the general public, including a call to action.

2. The agency name has been changed.

REFERENCES

Alexander, J., Nank, R., & Stivers, C. (1999). Implications of welfare refonn: Do non- profit survival strategies threaten civil society? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 452-475.

Alliance for Justice (2004). Investing in change: Afunder's guide to supporting advo- cacy. Washington, DC. Alliance for Justice.

Avner, M. (2004). The lobbying and advocacy handbook for nonprofit organizations: Shaping public policy at the state and local level. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through trans- formational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Boris, E. & Krehely, J. (2002). Civic participation and advocacy. In The State of Non- profit America, edited by Lester Salamon, pp. 299-330. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Bums, J.M. (1978). Leadersiiip. New York: NY. Harper & Row. 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 Process, Washington, DC, May 18, 2001.

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

Donaldson, L. P. (2004). Toward Validating Therapeutic Benefits of Empower- ment-Oriented Social Action Groups. Social Work with Groups, 27, 2/3, 159-175.

Donaldson, L. P. (2005). Dissertation. Organizational Factors as Correlates of Advo- cacy Behavior in Nonprofit Human Service Agencies in Washington, DC.

Egri, C.P. & Frost, P.J. (1994). Introduction. Leadership for environmental and social change. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 195-200.

46 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK

Epstein, I. (1981). Advocates on advocacy: An exploratory study. Social Woric Re- search and Abstracts, 17(1), 5-12.

Flynn, J. ( 1992). Social agency policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Gibelman, M, & Kraft, S. (1996). Advocacy as a core agency program: Planning con-

siderations for voluntary human service agencies. Administration in Social Work, 20(4), 43-59,

Gronbjerg, K, (1993). Understanding nonprofit funding: Managing revenues in .social seiyices and community development organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Hepworth, D., Rooney, R. & Larsen, J. (2002) Direct social work practice: Theory and skills, 6" ed. Pacifica Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Home, A. (1991), Mobilizing women's strengths for social change: The group connec- tion. Social Work with Groups, 14, 3/4, 153-173,

Hickman, G,R, (1997), Transforming organizations to transform society. Transfor- mational Leadership Working Papers. College Park, MD: Academy of Leadership Press

Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems, (2" Ed). New York: Oxford University Press,

Hudson, P. (1998a). The voluntary sector, the state, and citizenship in the United Kingdom. Social Service Review, 72(4), 452-465.

Jansson, B. (2003). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to so- cial justice. 4"̂ ed. Pacific Cove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Jenkins, C. (1987). Nonprofit organizations and policy advocacy. In W. W. Powell (Ed), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, New Haven, CT: Yale Univer- sity Press.

Kaufman, R, (2001), Coalition activity of social change organizations in a public cam- paign: The influence of motives, resources, and processes on levels of activity. Journal of Community Practice, 9(4), p. 21-42,

Kingdon, J,W. (1995), Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2"'' ed,). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.

Kramer, R, (1994), Voluntary agencies and the contract culture: Dream or nightmare? Social Service Review, 68( 1 ), 33-60.

Kramer, R. (1985), The future of the voluntary agency in a mixed economy. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21(4), 377-391.

Libby, M. & Austin, M. (2002). Building a coalition of non-profit agencies to collabo- rate with a county health and human services agency: The Napa County Behavioral Health Committee of the Napa Coalition of Nonprofits. Administration in Social Work, 26(4), p. 81-99.

Matsuak, L.R, ( 1997). Finding your voice: Learning to lead anywhere you want to make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,

McCarthy, J. & Castelli, J. (1996), "Studying Advocacy in the Nonprofit Sector: Refo- cusing the Agenda." Draft paper prepared for the Independent Sector Spring Forum,

Mizrahi, T. & Rosenthal, B. (2001). Complexities of coalition building: Leaders' suc- cesses, strategies, struggles, and solutions. Social Work, 46(1), p. 63-78.

National Association of Social Workers, (1996). Code of ethics, Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Linda Plitt Donaldson 47

Nelson, G. (1994). The development of a mental health coalition: A case study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22(2), p. 229-256.

O'Connell, B. (1994). People power: Service, advocacy, empowerment. Washington, DC: The Foundation Center.

OMBWatch, Charily Lobbying and the Public Interest, Tufts University. (2002). Strengthening nonprofit advocacy project. Washington, DC.

Reinelt, C. (1994). Fostering empowerment, building community: The challenge for state-funded feminist organizations. Human Relations, 47(6), 685-704.

Roberts-DeGennaro, M. (1997). Conceptual framework of coalitions in an organiza- tional context. Journal of Community Practice, 4(1), p. 97-107.

Rost, J.C. (1991 ). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Saidel, J. & Harlan, S. (1998). Contracting and patterns of nonprofit governance. Non-

profit Management and Leadership, 8(3), 243-259. Salamon, L. (1995, March). Exploring Nonprofit Advocacy. Paper presented at the

Independent Sector Spring Research Forum, Alexandria, VA, March 15, 1995. Selsky, J.W. & Smith, A.E. (1994). Community entrepreneurship: A framework for

social change leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 277-296. Smith & Lipsky (1993). Nonprofits for hire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press. Sosin, M. (1986). Private benefits: Material assistance in the private sector. New

York, NY: Academic Press, Inc. Stevens, S.K. (2001). Nonprofit Lifecycles: Stage-Based Wisdom for Nonprofit

Capacity. Minneapolis: LarsonAllen Public Service Group. Tefft, G. (1987). Advocacy coalitions as a vehicle for mental health system reform: A

case study. In E. Bennett (Ed.), Social intervention: Theory and practice, (pp. 155-185). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Wolch, J. (1990). The shadow state: Government and voluntary sector in transition. Washington, DC: The Foundation Center.

Wong, C. K. (1993). State-funded social work projects for social reform: Reflections from community organizing in Hong Kong. International Social Work, 36,249-260.

doi: 10.1300/J147v32n02_03

48 ADMINISTRA TION IN SOCIAL WORK

APPENDIX

Ideal Characteristics of a Human Service Agency with a Fully Integrated Progressive Advocacy Program

1. Advocacy/social change activities are written into the mission statement, vision statement, and core values of the agency;

2. The agency budget has a line-item supporting at least one or more full- time staff people to carry out activities of the advocacy department.

3. The advocacy department has the support of a communications officer to help frame media messages, plan and implement a communications strategy to support advocacy goals, and develop relationships with print media reporters and TV/radio personalities.

4. The advocacy program is valued equally to service functions (as dem- onstrated on organizational chart and in resource allocation practices);

5. Institutionalized practices exist to build the agency advocacy agenda from constituent experiences and priorities. For example, service pro- grams could run weekly popular education and current affairs groups that could be a vehicle for airing and building a strategy to address col- lective grievances. This strategy could inform and drive the overall agency advocacy agenda.

6. Regular opportunities for staff and volunteers to reflect on structural in- equities and "isms" which underlie the reasons their constituents seek services.

7. The agency has mechanisms to mobilize donors, volunteers, constitu- ents, and other key stakeholders to advance a social change agenda.

8. The agency board has a policy or advocacy committee which gives sup- port to advocacy activities, including giving solicited advice, making strategic phone calls, visiting elected officials, and mobilizing their own well-placed contacts.

9. A strategic planning process that meaningfully includes constituents and staff at all levels where building an advocacy agenda and action

' plan are one of the focus areas. 10. A diversified funding portfolio to minimize dependency on one or two

funders.