Policy Advocacy Organizations: A Framework Linking Theory and Practice

Abstract

The practice of policy advocacy by organizations has outpaced its theoretical development. Yet the importance of a theoretical grounding for advocacy campaigns has increased with the need for accountability and an understanding of advocates' contributions to policy development. This article synthesizes practitioner and academic literature on policy advocacy and proposes a conceptual framework of policy advocacy inputs, activities, and outcomes. Five distinct advocacy strategies are hypothesized: enhancing a democratic environment, applying public pressure, influencing decision makers, direct reform, and implementation change. This framework provides guidelines for organizations to strategically engage policy processes, while directing a research agenda on advocacy organizations.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [24.130.173.169]
On: 14 June 2013, At: 13:54
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Policy Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpp20
Policy Advocacy Organizations: A
Framework Linking Theory and Practice
Sheldon Gen a & Amy Conley Wright b
a Department of Public Administration , San Francisco State
University , San Francisco , California , USA
b Department of Child & Adolescent Development , San Francisco
State University , San Francisco , California , USA
To cite this article: Sheldon Gen & Amy Conley Wright (2013): Policy Advocacy Organizations: A
Framework Linking Theory and Practice, Journal of Policy Practice, 12:3, 163-193
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2013.795477
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Policy Practice, 12:163–193, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1558-8742 print/1558-8750 online
DOI: 10.1080/15588742.2013.795477
Policy Advocacy Organizations: A Framework
Linking Theory and Practice
SHELDON GEN
Department of Public Administration, San Francisco State University, San Francisco,
California, USA
AMY CONLEY WRIGHT
Department of Child & Adolescent Development, San Francisco State University, San
Francisco, California, USA
The practice of policy advocacy by organizations has outpaced
its theoretical development. Yet the importance of a theoretical
grounding for advocacy campaigns has increased with the need for
accountability and an understanding of advocates’ contributions
to policy development. This article synthesizes practitioner and aca-
demic literature on policy advocacy and proposes a conceptual
framework of policy advocacy inputs, activities, and outcomes. Five
distinct advocacy strategies are hypothesized: enhancing a demo-
cratic environment, applying public pressure, influencing decision
makers, direct reform, and implementation change. This frame-
work provides guidelines for organizations to strategically engage
policy processes, while directing a research agenda on advocacy
organizations.
KEYWORDS advocacy, public policy, logic model
INTRODUCTION
Civic participation in policy advocacy is varied and complex, and ways to
simplify it are helpful for creating understanding. Its complexity mirrors the
policy-making process itself, with interacting considerations such as lengthy
time span, difficulties of attributing success to a particular advocacy effort,
Address correspondence to Sheldon Gen, Department of Public Administration, San
Francisco State University, 835 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103. E-mail: sgen@sfsu.edu
163
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

164 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
and the central role of values (Sabatier, 1999). However, little in the academic
literature directly and holistically addresses the theoretical linkages between
policy advocacy activities by the public, their requisite resources and knowl-
edge, and their expected outcomes. The practitioner literature has begun
to address this gap by identifying policy advocacy inputs, activities, and
outcomes. Yet the utility of this information is limited without some reason-
ing or evidence of how inputs lead to activities, or activities to outcomes.
How should an advocacy organization make decisions about investing in
resources, such as staff, training, and materials, without knowing what these
inputs may enable? And why should advocacy organizations engage in par-
ticular activities, without knowing the potential associated outcomes? At a
practical level, the lack of knowledge in this area hinders effective advocacy
programs. At an academic level, the lack of a conceptual framework limits
understanding of the various aspects of advocacy programs and their role in
the policy-making process.
This article responds to the need to understand policy advocacy as a
systematic process, to enable measurement and evaluation (Hoefer, 2011).
It attempts theory building through the development of a conceptual frame-
work, understood as a set of variables and how they interrelate, with
directionality among relationship not requisite, but possibly hypothesized
(Ostrom, 1999). The article does so by synthesizing the professional literature
on policy advocacy with the academic literature, primarily drawn from policy
studies, to formulate an empirically testable model for policy advocacy.
The Context of Policy Advocacy and Its Problem
We must first begin with a common understanding of what we mean
by policy advocacy. While the academic literature on specific forms of
policy advocacy is easily identifiable (e.g., lobbying, media work, campaign-
ing, etc.), the broader concept has escaped critical attention. Reid (2001,
p. 2) notes that advocacy is something we recognize when we see it, but
lacks definition: “There is no agreement on which activities constitute advo-
cacy, and no one source gives a full account of the many kinds of activities
and strategies groups use to leverage influence in the policy process.” The
absence in the academic literature of a common understanding of the forms,
contexts, elements, dynamics, and markers of effectiveness of policy advo-
cacy make this a challenging concept (Arons, 2000). Moreover, looking to
the work of policy advocates reveals a complex array of activities related
to policy advocacy, with assumed and tenuous connections to potential
outcomes.
However, when we look to how the term policy advocacy has been used
in the academic and professional literature, some defining characteristics
emerge. First, policy advocacy is initiated by citizens, acting individually or as
a collective (Reid, 2001) often represented by nonprofit organizations (Reid,
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 165
2006). The citizens represented may have less relative power in society or
may be unable to represent their own interests, such as the poor or children
(Jansson, 2010; Schlozman & Tierney, 1986). This “bottom up” approach
initiated by citizen stakeholders (Rietbergen-McCracken, n.d.) lies in stark
contrast to “top-down” public participation activities that are initiated by
government bodies, including familiar outreach tools such as public hearings,
citizen surveys, citizen juries, etc. (McLaverty, 2011).
Second, the method of policy advocacy involves a deliberate process
(Sprechmann & Pelton, 2001) of influencing decision makers (Jenkins, 1987)
or influencing a social or civic agenda (Schmid, Bar, & Nirel, 2008) in order
to build political will around action (Grantmakers in Health, 2005). Specific
advocacy approaches described by Hopkins (1992) include: programmatic
(or issue) advocacy, when an organization takes a position on a public
policy that affects their work; legislative advocacy, or lobbying of legisla-
tors; political campaign activity to support or oppose political candidates;
demonstrations, rallying public support around an issue or policy; boycotts,
to encourage or discourage business with a targeted entity; and litigation,or
using legal action to advance a cause. McCarthy and Castelli (2002) add to
this list grassroots advocacy, or engaging individual citizens in an advocacy
effort. While some also consider capacity building to be policy advocacy
(Morariu et al., 2009), we deliberately left out those elements from this study
when they were not connected to a goal of policy or social change.
Finally, the aim of advocacy ultimately is a change to policy (Reisman,
Gienapp, & Stachowiak, 2007) or the policy-making process, generally to
make it more accessible and transparent to the public; this latter goal has
been called “participatory advocacy” rather than policy advocacy (Chapman
& Wameyo, 2001). In terms of policy change, the goal may be to adopt,
modify, or reject certain policy options (Moore, 2011). Thus, to summarize
the main characterizations across the academic and professional literature,
for our purposes in this study, policy advocacy is defined as intentional
activities initiated by the public to affect the policy making process.
The Purposes of Policy Advocacy
When considering the general purposes of policy advocacy in a democratic
society, the broader literature on public participation provides both norma-
tive and descriptive answers. On the normative side, public participation is
widely prescribed to legitimize the process of policy making. By providing
the public access to the process, the public’s input can at least comple-
ment the government’s prescriptions for rational approaches to decision
making (deLeon, 1992) and perhaps identify shared interests between the
two (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2000). In doing so, public commitment (Bryson
& Anderson, 2000), and perhaps consensus (Xu, 2001), for policy choices
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

166 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
are enhanced. On the descriptive side, a limited body of empirical research
concludes that public participation can produce better policy outcomes.
Policies developed with public input have been found to be more effective
(Kastens & Newig, 2008), have wider distributions of benefits (Gallagher &
Jackson, 2008), and be more valued by the public (Smith & Huntsman, 1997).
Furthermore, others have found that public participation can also improve
the government processes itself, by making them more responsive to public
concerns (Frederickson, 1982; Nalbandian, 1999) and more adaptive to their
changing environments (Koenig, 2005).
While these benefits are impressive, they are social, and they ignore
the fact that advocates often engage the policy process not for broad social
gain, but to advance their own specific preferences. That is, while the above
benefits of public participation accrue to society, the individual groups of
advocates may engage policy for more narrow benefits. It is doubtful, there-
fore, that the social benefits of a lively campaign among competing interests
would be enough to motivate advocates to participate. Entirely missing from
the academic literature are the benefits to advocates for their policy advo-
cacy efforts. What are policy advocates’ expected outcomes for engaging the
policy process?
The simple answer to this question is they seek favorable policy
outcomes. After all, policy advocates often advocate for specific policies.
However, this answer does not hold up against thoughtful scrutiny. First, if
this were the sole measure of success for advocacy efforts, then most could
only be called failures. In a pluralistic society, few get exactly what they want
in policies. Especially with controversial issues that attract deep engagement
by many advocacy groups with different preferences, the policy outcome is
seldom a zero-sum game with clear winners and losers. As Robert Salisbury
described, “Very often there is no clear resolution, no definitive conclusion
to the process by which interests are articulated and pursued. ‘Play’ contin-
ues ...” (cited in Baumgartner & Leech, 1998, p. 61). In addition, even in
those rare cases where a policy advocacy group gets its preferred policy,
attribution of that outcome to their own advocacy efforts is tenuous at best.
Other groups with overlapping preferences may have contributed to the
outcome, making the causal link between advocacy efforts and outcomes
difficult, if not impossible, to empirically establish (Baumgartner & Leech,
1998). Further complicating the issue is the temporal length of political pro-
cesses. The arc of policy change can be on the scale of decades for some
issues (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999), an order of magnitude longer than
advocacy organizations’ programmatic and budgetary cycles. Activities with
such long feedback loops are not as attractive to supporters as those with
more immediate impacts.
In practice, there are ranges of expected outcomes for advocacy efforts,
of which favorable policy change is just one. However, while the practice of
advocacy has advanced, its theoretical groundings have not. This is certainly
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 167
not for a lack of theories of policy processes, but for a lack of applica-
tion to policy advocacy. This review begins to fill this gap in the literature
by focusing on three related questions: (1) what do policy advocates do
to try to affect public policy? (2) what are their requisite inputs to per-
form these activities? and (3) what are their expected outcomes for their
efforts? The answers to these questions have both practical and theoretical
significance. First, demand for accountability in advocacy work has grown.
Policy advocates and their supporters—from individual donors to major grant
funders—want to see measurable results of their advocacy efforts (DeVita,
Montilla, Reid, & Fatiregun, 2004; Fagen, Reed, Kaye, & Jack, 2009). Short of
favorable policy change, what other benchmarks might reflect the success of
advocacy efforts? Second, as described later in this article, theories of policy
processes may hypothesize the links between types of advocacy activities
and specific effects. This could help practitioners to strategically plan their
advocacy efforts, broaden the applicability of existing theories, and guide
future research in policy advocacy.
METHODS
This review draws on practitioner as well as academic literatures. Initially,
materials developed by sources such as foundations and nongovernmen-
tal organizations were identified by searching Google and other mainstream
search engines, using the search term “policy advocacy” plus “logic model.”
Logic models are visual depictions of social programs or change efforts
(Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). Some of the logic models led to the discov-
ery of others, by checking their references. For inclusion in the study, logic
models had to focus on policy advocacy and include at minimum the cate-
gories of inputs, activities, and outcomes (some logic models described this
latter category as goals, indicators, short- and long-term outcomes, or out-
comes and impacts). The elements of the logic model could be provided in a
graphic, tabular, or narrative format. Reports that describe how to construct a
logic model and use it for advocacy evaluation purposes, but did not identify
concrete elements of a policy advocacy logic model (for example, Guthrie,
Louie, David, & Foster, 2005) were excluded from the study. By the time
six logic models were found, themes identified in the logic models became
repetitious and we determined that saturation of ideas had been reached
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). See Table 1 for the list of logic models included in
the study.
The scope of the logic models, in terms of focus on special advocacy
topics and organizational authors, is broad. A number of the logic mod-
els identified were created by or at the behest of foundations, including
the Annie E. Casey Foundation, California Endowment, and Grantmakers
for Health. Two of the organizational authors focus on evaluation:
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

TABLE 1 Composite Theory of Change for Policy Advocacy
INPUTS/COMPETENCIES1
(necessary conditions) ACTIVITIES (things to do, actions)
PROXIMAL OUTCOMES2
(indirect and near-term)
DISTAL OUTCOMES
(indirect and long
term) IMPACTS
•Sense of “agency” in the
political process (AA) as
manifested by
◦Sense of
empowerment and
political power3
◦Will to challenge
status quo
◦Ability to identify and
define problems
•People and Relationships
(AA, CCHE, HFRP, GH)
◦Leadership
◦Staffing
◦Ability to organize
collective action
◦Strategic partnerships
•Coalition building (CCHE, AA, GH, AEC, PF)
◦Networking
◦Forming coalitions/Federations
•Engaging and mobilizing the public (AEC,
GH, HFRP, CCHE, AA)
◦Community organizing, outreach
◦Voter registration
◦Rallies, convenings, protests, writing
letters
•Engaging decision makers (CCHE, HFRP,
AA, PF, GH)
◦Lobbying
◦Relationship building
•Information campaigning (CCHE, HFRP, AA,
GH, AEC)
◦Research, policy analysis, white papers
◦Refining and framing message; labeling
◦Education
◦Briefings, presentations
◦Media advocacy
•Democratic
environment (AA)
◦Governance:
Transparency/
accountability
improved
◦Civil society: Power
and capacity
enhanced
•Changes in public
views (CCHE, HFRP,
AA, AEC)
◦Changes in
awareness, beliefs,
attitudes, values,
salience of issues,
behaviors
◦Strengthened base of
support: increased
public involvement,
levels of action
•Policy adoption
(CCHE, HFRP, AA,
AEC)
◦Changed,
improved
policy
◦Policy blocking
•Implementation
change (HFRP,
AA, AEC, GH)
◦Improved
implementation
◦Policy
enforcement
•Desired changes
for target
population
(CCHE, HFRP, AA,
AEC)
•Desired changes in
services and
systems (HFRP)
•People-centered
policy making
(AA)
168
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

•Specialized knowledge
and skills (AA, CCHE,
HFRP, GH):
◦Strategy
◦Research
◦Media
◦Public relations
◦Lobbying
•Material resources (CCHE,
HFRP, GH)
◦Financial
•Reform efforts (HFRP, GH, AEC, PF)
◦Pilots, demonstrations
◦Litigation
•Defensive activities (PF, AEC)
◦Read and react to opponents
◦Read and react to climate
•Policy monitoring (HFRP, GH, AEC)
◦Evaluation
•Changes in
decision-makers’ views
(CCHE, HFRP, AEC, PF)
◦Getting on political
agenda
◦Political will
1Group or individual level.
2Excluded agency-specific goals (e.g., increased funding, collaboration, recognition) as not central to policy advocacy mission.
3Sub-bullets are examples of the items in the major bullets; they are not comprehensive lists.
Abbreviations:
AA: Chapman, Jennifer, & Wameyo, Amboka. 2001. Monitoring and Evaluating Advocacy: A Scoping Study. Action Aid. 55 pages.
AEC: Reisman, Jane, Gienapp, Anne, & Stachowiak, Sarah. 2007. A Guide to Measuring Advocacy and Policy. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
38 pages.
CCHE: Center for Community Health and Evaluation. n.d. Measuring the Impact of Advocacy and Policy Efforts: Case Study Example. Center for Community Health
and Evaluation.
GH: Grantmakers in Health. 2005. Funding Health Advocacy, Issue Brief No. 21. Grantmakers in Health.
HFRP: Coffman, Julia. 2007. Using the Advocacy and Policy Change Composite Logic Model to Articulate an Advocacy Strategy or Theory of Change. Harvard
Family Research Project.
PF: Morariu, Johanna, Reed, Ehren, Brennan, Kathy, Stamp, Andy, Parrish, Simone, Pankaj, Veena, & Zandniapour, Lily. 2009. Pathfinder: A Practical Guide to
Advocacy Evaluation. Washington, DC:Innovation Network, Inc. 10 pages.
169
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

170 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
Center for Community Health (n.d.) and Evaluation and Innovation Network,
Inc. One organization, Action Aid, is an international humanitarian aid orga-
nization. Given the saturation of ideas and variety of sources, we concluded
that an adequately representative sample (Cooper, 1988) of policy advocacy
logic models had been identified.
Next, these policy advocacy logic models were combined into a com-
posite table through a process of coding each logic model for shared themes
(Table 1). This table is most akin to a theory of change, given its simplic-
ity and purpose of explaining how social change is expected to occur; by
contrast, a program logic model is intended to be comprehensive and out-
line the connections needed for a evaluate or monitor a social program.
However, as the combined model was adapted from practitioner logic mod-
els, it includes elements more commonly found in program logic models than
theory of change models (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009). In this article, we refer
to this table as a “combined logic model.” Its unit of analysis is the advocacy
program or campaign that an organization engages, and it has three major
categories of elements: inputs, activities, and outcomes. The breadth of activ-
ities we identified captured all those identified by Baumgartner and Leech’s
(1998, p. 152) comprehensive review of interest group activities, further con-
firming the adequate scope of our sample of logic models. The category of
outcomes includes three levels: proximal (near-term and more direct), distal
(long-term and more indirect) and impacts (intended change). Abbreviations
are included in our descriptions to indicate the original logic models from
which the elements are drawn.
This task of combining logic models was guided by our expectation that
there are common sets of inputs, activities, and expected outcomes for policy
advocacy programs that transcends specific policy outcome goals. Still, the
authors of the original logic models developed them under different contexts
that required us to interpret some elements in the original logic models differ-
ently that the original authors had. For example, the logic model developed
by Action Aid was intended for advocacy work in developing democracies.
Thus, the activities they identified had goals of building democratic capac-
ities and processes, rather than specific policy outcomes. Meanwhile, other
logic models were developed in a U.S. context that assumed that demo-
cratic processes are in place. Thus, their logic models identified activities that
aimed to change policies in specific fields (e.g., health, family welfare, etc.).
We coded the logic models from a perspective of a functioning democracy
characterized by “free elections for a popular mandate, with elected officials
held responsible to the citizenry; the existence of an effective, independent
judiciary; a depoliticized bureaucracy functioning according to written rules;
legal guarantees (usually of a constitutional nature) of basic rights; and a
free press” (Ramet, 1992, p. 549). From this perspective, we independently
coded the elements of the logic models, using inductive and deductive pro-
cesses to identify key ideas. Codes were created and grouped until central
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 171
themes emerged (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), and complete coding agreement
was achieved on the final round of coding.
Once the coded elements for the combined logic model had been iden-
tified (see Table 1), we turned to the academic literature to seek theoretical
support for the elements in it and connections between them. Specifically,
we sought theoretical connections between (1) inputs and the advocacy
activities they facilitate, and (2) advocacy activities and their expected out-
comes. The combined logic model headings (and variations of the concepts)
were used as search terms in major academic databases, including Academic
Search Premier, Lexus/Nexis, and ProQuest. In addition, major policy the-
ories were reviewed for their relevance, drawing on mainstream policy
texts. On the basis of this review of literature, Table 2 was compiled with
speculated connections between logic model elements.
The rest of this article describes the elements of our combined logic
model for policy advocacy, the theoretical links between its elements, and
the proposal of a conceptual framework and its advocacy strategies linking
inputs, activities, and outcomes, based on our review of relevant theories.
The Combined Logic Model and Its Theoretical Support
Based on its utilization in the practitioner literature, logic models appear to
be a useful way of understanding the process of policy advocacy. Hoefer
(2011) recommends a procedure called “advocacy mapping, ” based on a
logic model approach, to plan the steps of an advocacy effort, systemati-
cally connecting the problem or issue of focus and desired outcome with
the resources, tasks, outcomes, and ultimate social justice societal outcome.
Using a logic model approach offers the advantage of determining the
desired outcomes of an advocacy effort at the outset, to encourage clear
connections between advocacy strategies and goals.
To be plausible, the hypothesized connections between elements of a
theory of change or logic model require an underlying foundation of theory
and research, rather than just assumptions or anecdotal evidence (Knowlton
& Phillips, 2009). Yet none of the sources of the combined logic model iden-
tified connections between logic model elements. In this section, relevant
theories are identified, applied, and interpreted in the context of public pol-
icy advocacy. In some cases, application involves extrapolation, as theories
originally devised in other contexts are extended to advocacy.
Linkages between inputs and activities. The first category of the com-
bined logic model is labeled “inputs.” In program logic models, this category
is often described as resources required or consumed by activities (Knowlton
& Phillips, 2009). In this context, inputs are those necessary conditions for
policy advocacy activities.
One input identified by the review of practitioner logic models is a
sense of agency or empowerment by would-be advocates that allows them
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

TABLE 2 Theoretical Links among Inputs, Activities, Outcomes, and Impacts
Inputs Theoretical link Activities
Sense of “agency” in the political process Empowerment theory Coalition building; Engaging and mobilizing
the public
Specialized knowledge and skills Competency All
People and relationships Social capital theory Coalition building; Engaging and mobilizing
the public
Material resources Resource mobilization theory Coalition building; Engaging decision
makers; Information campaigning
Activities Theoretical link Outcomes and impacts
Coalition building;Engaging and mobilizing
the public; Information campaigning
Advocacy coalition framework; interest
group studies
Changes in public views; Changes in
decision-makers’ views; Policy adoption
Engaging decision makers Institutionalism; Elite theory Changes in decision-makers’ views; Policy
adoption
Information campaigning: research and
analysis
Rational decision making Changes in public views; Changes in
decision-makers’ views; Policy adoption
Information campaigning: rhetoric (e.g.,
issue framing, labeling, anecdotes, etc.)
Rhetoric studies Changes in public views; Changes in
decision-makers’ views; Policy adoption
Information campaigning: media work Media studies Changes in public views; Changes in
decision-makers’ views; Sets policy
agenda; Raises political will to act;
Shortens time frame for action
Reform efforts: litigation Adversarial legalism Policy adoption
Reform efforts: pilots, demonstrations Incrementalism Changes in public views; Changes in
decision-makers’ views; Policy adoption
Defensive activities Public dialectic Policy-oriented
learning
Changes in public views; Changes in
decision-makers’ views
Policy monitoring Bottom-up implementation theories Changes in bureaucrats’ actions
Policy monitoring Evaluation theory Setting the policy agenda
Information campaigning; Engaging and
mobilizing the public; Engaging decision
makers
Multiple streams theory Setting the policy agenda; Policy adoption
Engaging and mobilizing the public Public participation Democratic environment; People-centered
policy making
172
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 173
to feel that their actions may have an impact upon the public policy-
making process. Empowerment theory, a psychological construct used in
fields including community development, public health, social work, and
organizational management (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995) fits with this
notion, most particularly as it is used in the field of community psychology.
While empowerment is often defined imprecisely, it evokes the connections
between the strengths and competencies of community members, natural
helping systems that exist within communities, and their potential to impact
social policy and create social change (Rappaport, 1981). It encompasses
both attitudes and behaviors, by connecting how one understands one’s
competence and efficacy and how one chooses to act in social and political
arenas. A central idea is the connection between perceived personal control
and behaviors that seek to exert control (Zimmerman, 2000).
In terms of application, empowerment theory is most relevant to grass-
roots advocacy, as the premise is that empowerment exists not when
community members are dominated by professionals in a top-down manner,
but when the people inform officials of what social policies and programs
are needed in a bottom-up manner (Elmore, 1979). In other words, enacted
empowerment allows people to exert control over their own lives, rather
than cede control to professionals or decision makers (Rappaport, 1981).
Since empowerment is perceived as a characteristic of communities or
groups, as well as individuals, it may lead to collective forms of action
(Zimmerman, 1995), such as engaging the public and connecting with allies.
An empowered community is understood to have well-connected organiza-
tions, in the form of coalitions, as well as venues for citizen participation,
such as neighborhood crime prevention councils (Zimmerman, 2000).
Empowerment theory holds implications for the second input identified,
specialized knowledge and skills (Rappaport, 1981), suggesting that skills are
best developed in the context of daily life rather than in specialized train-
ing programs that lack real world application (Rappaport, Davidson, Wilson,
& Mitchell, 1975). Given that policy advocacy is a set of tasks intended to
make a change at national or societal level, the primary “input” needed is
able advocates. The review of logic models identified various forms of spe-
cialized knowledge and skills necessary to engage in advocacy efforts; these
include an understanding of strategy, research, media advocacy, public rela-
tions, and lobbying. Though there is no clear consensus (Strebler, Robinson,
& Heron, 1997; Jubb & Rowbotham, 1997), the concept of “competency” has
many meanings, including a person’s underlying skills, knowledge, and abil-
ities as well as actions and behaviors that can be observed (Hoffman, 1999).
This concept has taken root in many fields, including psychology (to measure
ability and how observable behaviors reflect underlying traits); management
theory (to define how organizational goals are achieved); human resource
management (to assess process of recruitment, training, etc.); education (to
link work preparation and professional advancement with education); and
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

174 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
political science (to improve efficiency of labor markets) (Hoffman, 1999).
The concept of competency applied to policy advocacy connects the “input”
of people and their specialized skills in strategy, research, media, public
relations, and lobbying, with “activities” that require such skills, such as con-
necting with allies, engaging with the public and people in positions of
power, and conducting information campaigns. Indeed, competency is often
understood, particularly in the American research literature, as an “input”
consisting of attributes possessed by an individual (Boak, 1991; Burgoyne,
1988; Rowe, 1995; Tate, 1995; Woodruffe, 1991).
People and the relationships between them seem to be considered as
crucial inputs to the advocacy process. The players in advocacy may be paid
administrators and staff, as well as volunteers and strategic partners. Social
capital theory suggests that qualities inherent to relationships, like trust and
reciprocity, can allow members of networks to benefit from their bonds with
each other (Lin, 2001). Robert Putnam’s (2000) work on social capital, with its
focus on civic participation and political life, is most relevant to policy advo-
cacy. He makes a distinction between two types of social capital: “bridging”
and “bonding.” Bridging social capital brings together people from diverse
backgrounds; examples include the civil rights movement and ecumenical
religious organizations. Bonding social capital, found in fraternal organiza-
tions and country clubs, encourages group identification and exclusivity.
Both are highly relevant for advocacy; the former in particular for engaging
the public, and the latter for connecting with allies. The notion that social
capital could be broken down into “weak” ties among acquaintances and
“strong” ties among friends emerged from Granovetter’s (1973) research on
how people use social networks to find jobs, and has been applied to use
of social media in social activism (Gladwell, 2010).
Tangible financial and material resources are also noted as necessary
inputs to the advocacy process. The role of financial and material resources
is a facet of resource mobilization theory. Resource mobilization theory
posits that engagement in social movements depends on factors related to
the circumstances of potential participants, including their competing com-
mitments, resources, social support, and costs (McCarthy & Zald, 2002).
There are two strands of the theory that have emerged; one that focuses
on the political process (McAdam, 1982) and another on organizations and
entrepreneurship (McCarthy & Zald, 1973). In terms of resources, social
movements require “land, labor, and capital” (Tilly, 1978, p. 6) to flourish,
and groups lacking in these resources will struggle to organize and find suc-
cess. Additional theoretical refinement suggests a typology of moral, material,
human, and informational resources (Cress & Snow, 1996). Resources may
be located in the group, allied groups, and larger society. Social movements
with shared goals can combine into “industries” that can share resources,
particularly through shared technologies of mobilization and protest; how-
ever, they also compete for limited financial resources from supporters, such
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 175
as foundations, and may clash over leadership decisions (McCarthy & Zald,
2002).
In terms of policy advocacy, resource mobilization theory has a few
major implications in terms of activities. It identifies media access as a
resource and suggests that social movements depend upon and attempt to
shape media coverage to reach a larger public. It also suggests that groups
can better meet their missions when they combine together with others in
coalitions, or “social movement industries” (McCarthy & Zald, 2002). Those
in position of authority can be assets to a social movement, if they become
adherents and elevate a cause in the view of authorities (McCarthy & Zald,
1977). This theory also suggests an association between financial resources
and successful advocacy, because these resources enable the hiring of expert
staff and the execution of communications campaigns (McCarthy & Zald,
1977; Saidel, 2002) that are central to policy advocacy. Organizations with
higher revenue and larger numbers of staff may also have greater organiza-
tional capacity to engage in a wide array of policy advocacy activities (Child
& Gronbjerg, 2007).
In summary, the theories and concepts of empowerment, competency,
social capital, and resource mobilization support connections between the
inputs and some of the activities identified in the logic model, in particular:
connecting with allies; engaging the public; engaging people in positions of
power; and information campaigning (see Table 2).
Linkages between activities, outcomes, and impacts. We next turn our
attention to advocacy activities, and apply relevant policy theories to pre-
dict resulting outcomes, both near term and long term. Activities are defined
here as the concerted actions done in advocacy that are meant to affect pol-
icy processes. The range of activities noted in the logic models suggest that
advocates have an extensive menu of options for seeking their policy advo-
cacy goals, which include strategies that aim to engage, inform, and influence
other advocates, decision makers, and the public. These activities may result
in short-term/proximal outcomes that create an opening for social change,
such as responsive democratic environment that enables advocacy, greater
public awareness and support of an issue, and decision maker awareness
and support. The long-term or distal goal of public policy advocacy is, of
course, affecting change in the policy domain through policy adoption and
changes to policy implementation. Ultimately, policy itself is a means to an
end, and that end is societal impact (Knowlton & Phillips, 2009), whether on
people, services and systems, or the political system (Chapman & Wameyo,
2001).
The first two types of activities in the combined logic model—coalition
building and engaging the public—share a common characteristic of coordi-
nating with organizations and individuals with similar policy goals. These
types of activities assume a pluralistic view of democracy (Dahl, 1967)
in which policy power is dispersed among many competing groups and
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

176 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
interests. In this view, an organization’s own policy preferences are more
likely to be enacted if greater support for them can be demonstrated. Thus
the theoretical literature on coalitions, issue networks, and interest groups
most directly apply here. Most relevant, the advocacy coalition framework
claims that policy subsystems, made of participating coalitions of interests, is
the most relevant unit of analysis for understanding policy change (Sabatier,
1988), even more so than government players, because it is the coalitions
within these subsystems, and their interactions with each other, that drive
policy change. Furthermore, these coalitions are formed around common
policy beliefs and interests, and their goals are to translate those beliefs
into public policies (Nowlin, 2011; Sabatier, 1988; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith,
1999). They attempt to do so through exchanges of information and views
among the coalitions, resulting in relevant learning about the policy issue,
and changes in policy preferences. Thus, the theory appears to link coalition
building, public engagement, and information campaigning to changes in the
public’s and decision makers’ awareness and support, leading further to pol-
icy change. The advocacy coalition framework originated from observations
of environmental policy change, but has since been applied to numerous
policy issues (Weible et al., 2011). Complementing this framework are inter-
est group studies that describe the characteristics of groups that affect their
relative influence on policy (Baumgartner & Leech, 1998). These focus on
their ability to coordinate collective communication and mobilize members
for actions (Cahn, 1995, p. 208), their size (e.g., membership, budgets) and
expertise (Cahn, 1995, p. 208; Sabatier, 1988), and their status or prestige in
the policy issue (Truman, 1993).
Despite these promises of coalition building, mobilizing the public to
act is difficult and has drawn its own attention in policy studies. Olson’s
(1965) theory of latent groups claims that large groups are ineffective (latent)
in achieving common goals unless the individuals in them are coerced or
induced to act. Thus, in policy advocacy, large groups of engaged citizens
must be mobilized to vote, protest, rally, etc., because most individuals in
the group will not act on their own. The purposes of such mobilization may
depend upon the specific organized activity. For example, protests are meant
to draw attention to specific issues, to spur policy actions. Thus, they can be
seen as focusing events to set the policy agenda (Birkland, 1997; Kingdon,
1984). While academics have mostly limited their studies of focusing events
to natural disasters (e.g., draughts, hurricanes, tsunamis) and human acci-
dents (e.g., nuclear power plant meltdowns, levy breaches), focusing events
can be human made. Protests and rallies are examples of these.
In general, mobilization activities at a minimum increases the capacities
of individuals in the policy process. Putnam (1976) identified a stratification
of policy power with six levels, ranging from bottom to top: nonpartici-
pants, voters, attentive public, activists, influentials, and proximate decision
makers. One purpose of mobilizing the public, therefore, could be to move
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 177
individuals to higher strata of policy influence. Indeed, one normative criti-
cism of this stratified, elitist policy power structure is the lowest strata support
elitism by not participating in the process (Walker, 1966). Through inaction,
nonparticipants tacitly delegate their authority to the existing power holders.
In contrast, developing broader participation in the lower strata essentially
redistributes power more equitably across the strata.
In contrast to engaging the public to build broad based support is a set
of advocacy activities that focus on building support within small groups of
key policy players. This type of activity—including lobbying and building
relationships with decision makers—evokes the view of institutionalism in
which power to change policy is wielded directly by those formal players
who are required to participate in the policy process: legislatures, executives,
courts, and even government agencies (Cahn, 1995; Theodoulou & Kofinis,
2004, pp. 55–77). While engaging those who are required to participate and
have direct influence seems like an obvious advocacy strategy, rival theo-
ries of the policy process do not place primary power with the institutional
players. Instead, they view the decisions and the actions of institutional play-
ers to be reactions to more powerful, noninstitutional players that influence
them. In institutionalism, however, policy advocates attempt to influence the
formal players directly, rather than through public pressure, media, or other
intermediate players.
Still, advocacy work with key policy players is not limited to institutional
players. There may be powerful individuals or groups, inside and outside of
government institutions, that dominate the policy process, and policy advo-
cates may attempt to build relationships with them in order to influence pol-
icy. Elite theory substantiates this strategy. It claims, like institutionalism, that
policy power is concentrated in a relatively small group of people. But unlike
institutionalism, that group is not necessarily government players. Instead,
they are an upper social class of people who are relatively homogenous, self-
aware, and self-perpetuating (Mills, 1956; Putnam, 1976). Advocates holding
this view of power distribution conclude that any policy change necessarily
requires the actions of the elite. Thus, educating them on issues and swaying
their preferences is a proximal goal toward policy change. Admittedly, elite
theory itself does not leave much room for non-elite advocates to influence
the elite class. In fact, a tenant of elite theory is their relative autonomy
(Putnam, 1976) and their ability to mold the opinions of the public to follow
their own (Edelman, 1964; Herman & Chomsky, 2002). Even so, in Putnam’s
(1976) pyramid of political stratification, he opens the possibility of the elite
class being influenced by the activists and public below it.
The next category of advocacy activities, information campaigning, is
supported by a broad range of expected outcomes identified by academic
theories and empirical evidence. We divide this literature into two categories:
one based upon the types of information produced for policy advocacy, and
one based upon a particular mode of dissemination. In turn, the types of
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

178 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
information can be further divided into two broad categories: research and
rhetoric. Research activities in this context includes the analysis of empirical
data as well as the construction of arguments based upon rationality (e.g., the
practices described in Bardach, 2000; Weimer & Vining, 1992) . Indeed, many
theories of policy decision making are derived from the classic normative
theory of rationality. In this view, research and analyses play an important
role in policy processes by providing relevant information to produce bet-
ter decisions (Lindblom & Cohen, 1979; Weiss & Bucuvalas, 1980). Thus,
some advocacy groups—especially think tanks—engage in policy research
to inform stakeholders of relevant information needed for optimal policy
selections. The audiences of the research may range from the decision mak-
ers themselves, for direct influence on policy change, to the at-large public,
for indirect influence. Rationality as a descriptive theory, however, has come
under unrelenting empirical criticism. Many have observed the sub-optimal
realities of policy decision making and derived more grounded theories, such
as Lindblom’s incrementalism (1959) and Simon’s (1945) bounded rationality
and satisficing. Even so, these theories assume a normative desire for ratio-
nality, so research remains a vital aspect of these theories. Even normative
critics of a rational approach to decision making do not refute the role that
research can play. They simply don’t give it the place of honor that it finds
in rational approaches (e.g., Stone, 2002).
The other major category of information campaigning is rhetoric, care-
fully crafted language meant to persuade. Products of rhetoric used in policy
advocacy are varied, but a few are supported by academic research. For
example, framing is the practice of presenting an issue from a particular per-
spective that supports the framer’s preference. Schneider and Ingram (1993)
found that framing policy targets in a favorable light is an effective tactic
for gaining policy support. They described this practice as the social con-
struction of policy target populations in favorable light to increase policy
support. Anecdotes, in contrast, are stories that convey policy-relevant infor-
mation (Nowlin, 2011) that help audiences better understand the contexts,
stakeholders, and values surrounding a policy issue (Jones & McBeth, 2010).
So far, the academic literature on rhetoric in policy advocacy lacks an overar-
ching theory of impact, but the individual studies of specific rhetorical tools
appear to mostly aim to change people’s perspectives and understandings of
policy issues.
Turning from the creation of information to its dissemination, media
studies provide a wider range of expected outcomes for policy advocates.
Overall, mass media are engaged by advocates for the obvious reason of rais-
ing public awareness of, and support for, advocates’ issues (Nowlin, 2011).
But some researchers have identified more specific outcomes. Iyengar and
Kinder (1987), for example, found that issues covered by mass media can set
the policy agenda by drawing public attention to it. Similarly, Linsky (1988)
found that media coverage of policy issues raises the issue to higher levels
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 179
of policy makers and increases their political will to act on these issues. He
also found that media coverage can shorten the time for policy change.
Policy advocates can also attempt to more directly and actively reform
policy. The most direct path is through litigation, which can force the
judiciary to review the advocate’s case and applicable policies themselves.
Litigation as an advocacy tool is based less on academic theory as it is on
judicial process. However, as an advocacy strategy that tends to be pursued
by groups, scholars have considered activism through judicial channels to
be a type of group pressure. Epstein, Kobylka, & Stewart (1995) conclude
that the decision-making process of whether to pursue litigation as a strategy
relates to the internal features of a group, the external social/political envi-
ronment, and the perceived interplay between these. Key internal features
include: the autonomy of group leaders to make decisions on the use of liti-
gation; resources (money, time, staff, and contacts), with litigation requiring
significant financial expenditure and time; organizational maintenance (or
efforts to sustain the organization’s existence), in terms of how the organiza-
tion’s constituency views litigation; and the foci or interests that the advocacy
group is positioned to promote or defend, with organizations focused on
issues such as discrimination and good governance tending to make greater
use of litigation. The external environment is the broad social/political con-
text, and whether it is favorable, unfavorable, or malleable (not yet decided)
on the issue. The final decision of whether to act through litigation comes
down to perceived institutional and organizational reasons. Acting through
the courts can be an appropriate institutional avenue to achieve goals, such
as under circumstances when groups perceive that they do not have influ-
ence in the executive or legislative branches. For organizational reasons,
litigation may be an attractive approach due to availability of attorneys, the
value of publicity for the organization, and the opportunity to challenge
ideological opponents.
Overall, the study of group litigation has been criticized as being overly
focused on examining substantive issues and failing to produce generalizable
theory (Epstein et al., 1995). Still, adversarial legalism has been advanced by
Kagan (1991, 1999) as a theory of the role of the courts in the policy-making
process, focused less on groups than on the (perhaps uniquely American)
role of aggressive lawyers. One emphasis of this theory is on litigant activism,
with claimants represented by lawyers, asserting their claims with the support
of evidence. According to this theory, the upside of litigation is the oppor-
tunity for “have nots” to triumph, while the downside is the cost (in terms
of time and money) and the uncertainty of outcome (due to fragmented
legal authority and variability of the courts) (Kagan, 1999). While Kagan
favors European approaches that put more policy control in the hands of
bureaucrats, others defend the role of the courts in the policy making pro-
cess as promoting balance among policy-making authorities (Busch, Kirp, &
Schoenholz, 1998–9).
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

180 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
Pilot or demonstration projects are another way advocates may try to
reform policies and programs, and their use is supported by incrementalism.
Lindblom (1959) first identified incremental decision making in a negative
light, as “muddling through,” in which comprehensive rational decision mak-
ing is abandoned in lieu of low-risk, low-impact decisions based upon series
of “successive limited comparisons.” According to Lindblom, this approach
is taken because the necessary information and institutional support for
comprehensive rational analyses are often lacking. He was describing a
sub-optimal decision-making process, not prescribing one. But low-risk
incremental decision making can be an effective strategy for policy advo-
cates when high-risk comprehensive reforms are political infeasible. In such
cases, pilot projects can demonstrate the efficacy of a reform on small scales,
thereby building support for more comprehensive reforms without imposing
high risks to stakeholders. Thus, pilot projects can be seen as a strategic use
of incrementalism to advocate for larger policy changes.
The defensive activities in the combined logic model assume a pluralis-
tic democracy (Dahl, 1967) in which policy-making influence is distributed
amongst multiple competing factions. In this setting, engaging opposing
factions in public discourse or debate is necessary to counter or lessen
the oppositions’ influence. The public dialectic among the factions trans-
forms observers into informed stakeholders, influencing their perspective
on the issues and perhaps gaining their alliance (Majone, 1989). For
example, in the advocacy coalition framework, policy change follows policy-
oriented learning among participants in the policy subsystem. Such learning
refers to enduring changes in participants’ understandings of the issues
and their values placed on them, and the learning occurs through the
exchange of information and views among policy participants (Sabatier,
1988). Operationally, this could include varying forms of public debate.
Activities that monitor policy implementation may serve different pur-
poses for policy advocates. On one hand, they may be used to apply
pressures on government agencies to implement policies as adopted. This
function adopts the bottom-up view of policy implementation, in which
bureaucrats have substantial discretionary power to interpret and apply poli-
cies as they see fit (Hill & Hupe, 2011). Bardach (1977) and Pressman and
Wildavsky (1984) famously described how bureaucrats and bureaucracies
can thwart best intentions of adopted policies. In this view, bureaucrats
are effectively policy makers themselves (Lipsky, 2010). Thus, savvy pol-
icy advocates may recognize the opportunity to influence bureaucrats’
implementation activities by holding them accountable to the advocates’
preferences in the adopted policies (Riley & Brophy-Baermann, 2006).
On the other hand, monitoring can be viewed as an evaluation activity,
meant to measure and judge how well-adopted policies are achieving their
goals. The purpose here is to improve policy, though sometimes it is used
as a symbolic act to appease stakeholders (Nachmias, 1980). For policy
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 181
advocates, each of these outcomes may be relevant: the former to change
policy, the latter to defend policy. But in both cases, the target of their
advocacy is not the bureaucrats directly, but the policy agenda. That is, the
monitoring is meant to get the policy back on the agenda for reform, or keep
it off the agenda to maintain its current form.
The academic literature applied above all focus on the elements of our
combined logic model that are advocacy activities, projecting what advocacy
outcomes might be expected from them. Complementing this are a few the-
ories from the policy studies literature that focus on specific outcomes in the
combined logic model and identify their antecedents. These too can help
understand what policy advocates expect from their efforts. First, Kingdon’s
(1984) multiple streams theory describes how policy change can occur when
three streams of events converge: a problem stream in which a social prob-
lem ascends the policy agenda, a policy stream that identifies solutions to
the problem, and a political stream that dictates the political feasibility of
policy change at a given time. The theory opens up several points of access
for advocates to influence policy change. Indeed, each of Kingdon’s streams
might be influenced by activities in the combined logic model. For exam-
ple, information campaigning can build public awareness of a problem, or
promote a favored solution. Similarly, citizen mobilizations, such as protests,
can serve as focusing events that builds awareness of a problem and sets the
policy agenda. Also, lobbying and campaigning might increase political will
among policy makers to act. Second, studies on public participation in policy
making, as described earlier, identify outcomes that strengthen democracies,
independent of the specific policies adopted. These include legitimization of
the policy-making process through broader input and support for adopted
policies (Bryson & Anderson, 2000; Smith & Huntsman, 1997; Xu, 2001),
more effective polices (Kastens & Newig, 2008), and broader distribution of
policy benefits among stakeholders (Gallagher & Jackson, 2008). For some
policy advocates, these democratic outcomes may be as important, if not
more so, as specific policies.
DISCUSSION
The conceptual framework we propose in this article follows the lead of
the practitioner literature by presenting the inputs, activities, and outcomes
of policy advocacy, and theoretical linkages among them, in the format of
a logic model (Figure 1). Having identified logic models from the practi-
tioner literature, and combined like elements to create a combined logic
model, we then identified theories suggesting that certain inputs enable var-
ious kinds of activities, and that certain activities may lead to various types
of outcomes, resulting in a conceptual framework. Our applications found
that current theories, primarily drawn from theories of the policy process,
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

182 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
FIGURE 1 Hypothesized links1within the policy advocacy logic model.
Note: 1Linkages between elements of the logic model are from left to right, as indicated by the timeline
above the logic model, except for the link between “Changes in public views” and “Changes in decision-
makers’ views.” For visual clarity, arrowheads were removed from the individual linkages.
support connections between most of the elements identified in practitioner
logic models. The absence of linkages in our figure between certain inputs,
activities, and outcomes does not presume that connections are lacking, it
simply means that our literature review did not identify theory that supports
such connections.
Even so, our logic model clearly suggests some hypothesized patterns
of policy advocacy that may be empirically tested. At least two broad goals
of advocacy are identified in the logic model, and perhaps five strategies
of advocacy. See Figures 2a – 2e. The first goal—promoting public-centered
policy making—appears to take an appropriate strategy that is rooted in
public action (Figure 2a.). Its key inputs include people and relationships,
and its activities are in engaging and mobilizing the public. These activi-
ties do not aim for specific policy outcomes, but instead are meant to build
the political influence of a group or the public in the policy-making pro-
cess, thereby resulting in public policies that better represent their interests.
The second goal—changes for target populations and the systems that serve
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 183
2a: Enhanced democratic environment
2b: Public pressure
FIGURE 2 Hypothesized advocacy strategies.
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

184 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
2c: Decision makers
2d: Direct reform
FIGURE 2 (Continued)
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 185
2e: Implementation change
FIGURE 2 (Continued)
them—appears to have four distinct strategies for advocacy. Two of these
are focused on the power of legislators, executives, or other policy elites
to make policy changes, but they differ in how they aim to influence these
decision makers. The public pressure strategy (Figure 2b) engages several
advocacy activities such as information campaigning, community organiz-
ing, and coalition building, to sway the public’s views on policy issues.
The change in public awareness or preferences then influences the decision
makers’ actions in adopting specific policy changes favorable to the engaged
public. The variation on this strategy bypasses the proximal outcome of
changing public views and instead attempts to directly influence decision
makers’ views (Figure 2c). Our review of the policy studies literature suggests
that all of the advocacy activities in the logic model are used in this strategy,
making it the most varied strategy identified here. Another strategy aimed
at target population services and impacts takes a direct approach at policy
change, bypassing legislative processes (Figure 2d). The direct reform strat-
egy provides policy advocates a more critical role in policy change efforts,
in lieu of the legislative and executive decision makers described above. For
example, using litigation to reform policy requires an advocate/plaintiff with
legal standing to initiate the judicial review. Similarly, direct ballot initiatives
require advocates to advance the policy proposal to a referendum. These
activities often require specialized knowledge and skills in the policy issue
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

186 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
and judicial processes, which may limit its use among policy advocates.
The last apparent strategy also bypasses legislative processes, but instead
focuses on the implementation policy, rather than its adoption (Figure 2e).
The implementation change strategy relies on policy monitoring activities to
affect how policies are implemented, thereby affecting the goal for target
population services and impacts. Like the direct reform strategy, changing
how a policy is implemented also requires specialized knowledge and skills,
especially in the areas of bureaucratic processes, policy interpretation, and
policy adjudication.
These five strategies resulted from our linking of the composite logic
model to relevant academic literature in policy studies, and they establish
testable hypotheses for future empirical research. Such research would likely
observe policy advocacy organizations and their actions, test for the practice
of these strategies, and also look for other strategies that are not captured in
this study.
Limitations
There were, however, some areas of the conceptual framework for which
theory was lacking. In the connections between inputs and activities, the-
ories supported several connections to activities such as coalition building,
engaging the public, engaging decision makers, and information campaign-
ing. However, the inputs needed to engage in activities such as reform
efforts, defensive actions, and monitoring of the policy implementation pro-
cess remain unclear. In the connections between activities and outcomes, a
majority of activities are connected directly and indirectly to changes in deci-
sion makers’ views, as these formal players are often necessary for policy
change. However, the relative influence of these activities on decision mak-
ers’ views is unknown and not hypothesized here. Also, no distinctions are
made here on the types of decision makers that might be more influenced by
one sort of advocacy activity over another. Instead, in this conceptual frame-
work, they are all classified similarly. There is also an area in which the
theory seems to be ahead of practice. Sabatier (1988) identified time for pol-
icy change as an important consideration, especially time for policy-relevant
learning, and Linsky (1988) suggests that policy advocates can affect the time
span for change. Yet the practitioner literature is mostly void of discussions
of time, other than efforts to set the policy agenda to force policy consid-
erations. These weaknesses of the combined logic model are all subjects
for future empirical research. This conceptual framework simply provides an
important context for their study.
Our claims on the generalizability of this conceptual framework must
also be articulated. While we have developed our initial combined logic
model from advocacy organizations in varied policy arenas, there are three
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 187
clear limitations of its applicability. First, as previously mentioned, our frame-
work assumes a political and social context that is characterized by a
democratic form of government that allows people to participate in processes
such as shaping the policy agenda, expressing preferences for govern-
ment actions, and voting with an assurance that everyone has an equal
voice (Dahl, 1989). In such as system, policy advocacy functions as the
people-initiated participation in the policy-making process, in contrast to the
government-initiated public participation process. In contrast, under authori-
tarian forms of governance, the political system is not constitutionally bound
to public input into the policy-making process, and therefore the conceptual
framework described in this article would not be applicable. Second, while
an individual may independently engage in policy advocacy, the logic mod-
els that informed this research took the perspective of a group and assumed
collective action. This conceptual framework cannot be assumed to apply to
actions undertaken by an individual working on their own. Last, we reiter-
ate that the academic theories that we have drawn upon were developed in
varied fields, none of which was specifically policy advocacy organizations.
We justified this activity, and this article, on the fact that policy advocacy
simply lacks theoretical grounding. Nonetheless, our application of exist-
ing theories to this conceptual framework is an extrapolation outside of
their original contexts, to hypothesize the relationships between advocacy
inputs, activities, and outcomes. By doing so, we present direction for future
research on policy advocacy.
CONCLUSION
Policy advocacy is an understudied field, with limited theory and empirical
research. For example, in their comprehensive review of the interest group
literature, Baumgartner and Leech (1998) concluded that the decline in inter-
est group research in the 1970s was due not to actual changes in the political
system, but to social scientists’ methodological constraints in measuring inter-
est groups’ activities and outcomes. This study directly addresses this issue
by hypothesizing a plausible conceptual framework for policy advocacy,
based on practitioner literature and academic theories, which identifies mea-
sures for advocacy inputs, activities, and outcomes. Empirical research on
these variables, and their perceived connections among them, is needed to
substantiate or refute the hypothesized linkages of this conceptual model.
Such research may help to guide the development of performance measures
for the policy advocacy field, which would respond to the growing interest
in policy advocacy evaluation, and address some of its inherent challenges,
such as documenting progress (Morariu et al., 2009). Academically, such
research would also help fill an increasingly critical gap in our understanding
of processes of policy change, focusing on the necessary resources, activities,
and efficacy of policy advocates.
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

188 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
REFERENCES
Arons, D. (2000). The meanings and actions of advocacy. The Nonprofit Quarterly,
7(1–3), 7–9.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a
law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bardach, E. (2000). A practical guide for policy analysis: The eightfold path to more
effective problem solving (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (1998). Basic interests: The importance of
groups in politics and in political science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Birkland, T. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Boak, G. (1991). Developing managerial competencies: The management learning
contract approach. London, UK: Pitman.
Bryson, J. M., & Anderson, S. R. (2000). Applying large-group interaction meth-
ods in the planning and implementation of major change efforts. Public
Administration Review,60(2), 143–153.
Burgoyne, J. (1988). Competency based approaches to management development.
Lancaster, UK: Centre for the Study of Management Learning.
Busch, C. B., Kirp, D. L., & Schoenholz, D. F. (1998–9). Rights, politics, and exper-
tise: Righting the balance. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public
Policy,2(2), 247–263.
Cahn, M. A. (1995). The players: Institutional and noninstitutional actors in the policy
process. In S. Z. Theodoulou & M. A. Cahn (Eds), Public policy: The essential
readings (pp. 201–211). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Center for Community Health and Evaluation. (n.d.). Measuring the impact of
advocacy and policy efforts: Case study example. Retrieved from http://
www.civicpartnerships.org/docs/services/OLE/2010OLEConfPresentations/CCP
%20Conf_VGC%20Eval%20Worksheet%20.pdf
Chapman, J., & Wameyo, A. (2001). Monitoring and evaluating advocacy: A
scoping study. Action Aid. Retrieved from:http://www.actionaid.org/assets/pdf/
Scoping%20advocacy%20paper%202001.pdf
Child, C. D., & Gronbjerg, K. A. (2007). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their
characteristics and activities. Social Science Quarterly,88(1), 259–281.
Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge synthesis: A taxonomy of literature
reviews. Knowledge in Society,1, 104–126.
Cress, D. M., & Snow, D. A. (1996). Mobilization at the margins: Resources, bene-
factors, and the viability of homeless social movement organizations. American
Sociological Review,61, 1089–1109.
Dahl, R. A. (1967). Pluralist democracy in the United States: Conflict and consent.
Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Company.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
deLeon, P. (1992). The democratization of the policy process. Public Administration
Review,52(2), 125–129.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather
than steering. Public Administration Review,60(6), 549–559.
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 189
DeVita, C. J., Montilla, M., Reid, B., & Fatiregun, O. (2004). Organizational factors
influencing advocacy for children. Washington, DC: Center on Nonprofits and
Philanthropy, The Urban Institute.
Edelman, M. J. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Champaign, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
Elmore, R. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy
decisions. Political Science Quarterly,80, 601–616.
Epstein, L., Kobylka, J. F., & Stewart, J. F. (1995). A theory of interest groups and
litigation. In S. Nagel (Ed.), Research in law and policy studies. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Fagen, M. C., Reed, E., Kaye, J. W., & Jack, L. (2009). Advocacy evaluation: What it
is and where to find out more about it. Health Promotion Practice, 10, 482–484.
Frederickson, H. G. (1982). The recovery of civism in public administration. Public
Administration Review,42(6), 501–507.
Gallagher, D. R., & Jackson, S. E. (2008). Promoting community involvement at
brownfields sites in socio-economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. Journal
of Environmental Planning & Management,51(5), 615–630.
Gladwell, M. (2010, Oct. 4). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted.
The New Yorker,86 , 42–49.
Glaser, B., & and Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.
Granovetter, M. (1973, May). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of
Sociology,78, 1360–1380.
Grantmakers in Health (2005, February). Funding health advocacy (Issue Brief
No. 21). Washington, DC: GIH.
Guthrie, K., Louise, J., David, T., & Foster, C. C. (2005, October). The challenge of
assessing policy and advocacy activities: Strategies for a prospective evaluation
approach. Prepared by Blueprint Research & Design, Inc. for the California
Endowment.
Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing consent: The political economy
of the mass media. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2011). Implementing public policy (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Hoefer, R. (2011). Advocacy practice for social justice (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Lyceum
Books, Inc.
Hoffmann, T. (1999). The meanings of competency. Journal of European Industrial
Training,23(6), 275–286.
Hopkins, B. R. (1992). Charity, advocacy and the law. New York, NY: Wiley.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Jansson, B. (2010). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to
social justice (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Jenkins, J. C. (1987). Nonprofit organizations and policy advocacy. In W. W. Powell
(Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 296–315). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough
to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal,38(2), 329–353.
Jubb, R., & Robotham, D. (1997). Competences in management development:
Challenging the myths. Journal of European Industrial Training,21(5), 171–175.
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

190 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
Kagan, R. A. (1991). Adversarial legalism and American government. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management,10(3), 369–406.
Kagan, R. A. (1998–9). Adversarial legalism: Tamed or still wild? New York University
Journal of Legislation and Public Policy,2(2), p. 217–245.
Kastens, B., & Newig, J. (2008). Will participation foster the successful implemen-
tation of the water framework directive? The case of agricultural groundwater
protection in Northwest Germany. Local Environment,13(1), 27–41.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies.NewYork,NY:
Longman.
Knowlton, L. W., & Phillips, C. C. (2009). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies
for great results. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Koenig, H. O. (2005). Empowerment in local government administration: The
case of Elgin, Illinois. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation
Journal,10(1). Retrieved from http://www.innovation.cc/case-studies/koenig_
government_improvement_v10ila13.pdf
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action.NewYork:
Cambridge University Press.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration
Review,19(spring), 79–88.
Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social
problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Linsky, M. (1988). Impact: How the press affects federal policy making.NewYork,
NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public
services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process.New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency,
1930–1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McCarthy, J. D., & Castelli, J. (2002). The necessity for studying organizational advo-
cacy comparatively. In P. Flynn & V. A. Hodgkinson (Eds), Measuring the impact
of the nonprofit sector (pp. 103–121). New York: Plenum.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements:
A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology,82, 1212–1241.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (2002). The enduring vitality of the resource
mobilization theory of social movements. In J. H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of
sociological theory (pp. 533–565). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
McLaverty, P. 2011. Participation. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The Sage handbook of governance
(pp. 402–417). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, C. (1956). The power elite. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Moore, S. (2011). Can public-policy advocacy be taught? Or learned? The
Philanthropist,23(4), 471–480
Morariu, J., Reed, E., Brennan, K., Stamp, A., Parrish, S., Pankaj, V., & Zandniapour,
L. (2009). Pathfinder evaluation edition: A practical guide to advocacy evalu-
ation. Innovation Network, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.innonet.org/index.
php?section_id=3&content_id=601
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 191
Nachmias, D. (1980). The role of evaluation in public policy. Policy Studies Journal,
8, 1163–1169.
Nalbandian, J. (1999). Facilitating community, enabling democracy: New roles for
local government managers. Public Administration Review,59(3), 187–197.
Nowlin, M. C. (2011). Theories of the policy process: State of the research and
emerging trends. Policy Studies Journal,39(S1), 41–60.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional
analysis and development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the
policy process (pp. 35–71), Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995, October). Empowerment theory,
research, and application. American Journal of Community Psychology,23(5),
569–579.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations
in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that federal pro-
grams work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration
as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation
of ruined hopes. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1976). The comparative study of political elites. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Ramet, S. (1992, fall). Balkan pluralism & its enemies. Orbis,36(4), 547–564.
Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over
prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology,9(1), 1–25.
Rappaport, J., Davidson, W. S., Wilson, M. N., Mitchell, A. (1975). Alternatives to
blaming the victim or environment: Our places to stand have not moved the
earth. American Psychologist,30, 525–528.
Reid, E. (2006). Nonprofit advocacy and political participation. In E. T. Boris & C.
E. Steuerle (Eds), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp.
343–372). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Reid, E. J. (2001). Understanding the word “advocacy”: Context and use. In Nonprofit
advocacy and the policy process: Structuring the inquiry into advocacy, Vo l. 1,
(pp. 1–7), Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Reisman, J., Gienapp, A., & Stachowiak, S. (2007). A guide to measuring advocacy
and policy. Prepared by Organizational Research Services for Annie E. Casey
Foundation.
Rietbergen-McCracken, J. (n.d.) Participatory policy making. Retrieved from:http://
pgexchange.org/images/toolkits/PGX_F_ParticipatoryPolicy%20Making.pdf
Riley, D. D., & Brophy-Baermann, B. E. (2006). Bureaucracy and the policy process:
Keeping the promises. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rowe, C. (1995). Clarifying the use of competence and competency models in
recruitment, assessment and staff development. Industrial and Commercial
Training,27(11), 12–17.
Sabatier, P. A. (1999). The need for better theories. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories
of the policy process (pp. 3–18). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

192 S. Gen and A. C. Wright
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the
role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences,21, 129–168.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An
assessment. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 117–166).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Saidel, J. R. (2002). Nonprofit organizations, political engagement, and public policy.
In E. J. Reid & M. D. Montilla (Eds.), Exploring organizations and advocacy
governance and accountability (pp. 1–18). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Schlozman, K. L., & Tierney, J. T. (1986). Organized interests and American
democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Schmid, H., Bar, M., & Nirel, R. (2008). Advocacy activities in nonprofit human
service organizations: Implications for policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly,37, 581–602.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1993). Social construction of target populations:
Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review,
87(2), 334–347.
Simon, H. (1945). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in
administrative organizations. Mankato, MN: The Free Press.
Smith, G. E., & Huntsman, C. A. (1997). Reframing the metaphor of citizen-
government relationship: A value-centered perspective. Public Administration
Review,57(4), 309–318.
Sprechmann, S., & Pelton, E. (2001, January). Advocacy tools and guide-
lines: Promoting policy change. A resource manual for CARE program
managers. Retrieved from http://www.care.org/getinvolved/advocacy/tools/
english_00.pdf
Strebler, M., Robinson, D., & Heron, P. (1997). Getting the best out of
your competencies, Institute of Employment Studies, University of Sussex,
Brighton, UK.
Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.).
New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Tate, W. (1995). Developing managerial competence: A critical guide to methods and
materials, London, UK: Gower.
Theodoulou, S., & Kofinis, C. (2004). The art of the game: Understanding American
public policy making. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Truman, D. (1993). The governmental process: Political interests and public opinion
(2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Walker, J. L. (1966). A critique of the elitist theory of democracy. American Political
Science Review,60, 285–295.
Weible, C., Sabatier, P., Jenkins-Smith, H., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & deLeon. P.
(2011). A quarter century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An introduction
to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal,39(3), 349–360.
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (1992). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice
(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1980). Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers’
frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review,
45(2), 302–313.
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013

A Framework for Policy Advocacy 193
Woodruffe, C. (1991). Competent by any other name. Personnel Management,23(9),
30–33.
Xu, J. (2005). Why do minorities participate less? The effects of immigration, edu-
cation, and electoral process on Asian American voter registration and turnout.
Social Science Research,34, 682–702.
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.
American Journal of Community Psychology,23(5), 581–599.
Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and
community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of
community psychology (pp. 43–63). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Downloaded by [24.130.173.169] at 13:54 14 June 2013