A Voice for Nonprofits
Abstract
Nonprofit organizations are playing an increasingly important role in delivering basic government services. Yet they are discouraged by federal law from participating in legislative lobbying efforts —even on issues that affect their clients directly. Without the involvement of nonprofits in the governmental process, the vulnerable populations they serve are left without effective representation in the political system. A Voice for Nonprofits analyzes the effect of government restrictions on the participation of nonprofits in the policymaking process and suggests ways to address the problems. The relationship between nonprofits and the government is ideal in many respects, according to Jeffrey M. Berry and David F. Arons. By underwriting operating budgets and subcontracting the administration of programs to nonprofits, governments at all levels are able to take advantage of nonprofits' dedication, imagination, and private fund-raising skills. However, as nonprofits assume greater responsibility for delivering services traditionally provided by government, that responsibility is not matched by a congruous increase in policy influence. Berry and Arons believe the lobbying restrictions should be eased so that nonprofits may become more involved in public policymaking. Their recommendations are designed to ensure that nonprofit organizations —and the constituencies they serve —are effectively represented in the American political system.
... However, a recent national survey (Faulk et al. 2023) revealed that only 31 % of public charities reported engaging in advocacy and lobbying activities within the past five yearsless than half the proportion identified in a comparable study conducted 20 years earlier (Bass et al. 2007). One of the primary challenges limiting nonprofit involvement in public affairs is inadequate knowledge of the regulations governing advocacy and lobbying activities, as highlighted by Berry (2003Berry ( , 2005, and Bass et al. (2007). Despite ongoing efforts to enhance nonprofits' understanding of these regulations, Faulk et al. (2023) found that this gap persists and has even widened. ...
... Notable examples include proposed revisions to the federal OMB Circular A-122 in 1983 and the "Istook Amendment" in the 1996 H.R. 2127 House Appropriations Bill, both of which sought to expand limits on policy-related communications by federal grantees, even when privately funded (Cox and McCloskey 1996). Due to the complexity of lobbying regulations and efforts to restrict nonprofit advocacy, studies in the early 2000s showed that nonprofit leaders often lacked a clear understanding of what activities are legally allowed (Bass et al. 2007;Berry 2003Berry , 2005. This confusion led to consequences, including nonprofit hesitancy to engage in advocacy out of fear that it might jeopardize their tax-exempt status (Berry 2003). ...
... Due to the complexity of lobbying regulations and efforts to restrict nonprofit advocacy, studies in the early 2000s showed that nonprofit leaders often lacked a clear understanding of what activities are legally allowed (Bass et al. 2007;Berry 2003Berry , 2005. This confusion led to consequences, including nonprofit hesitancy to engage in advocacy out of fear that it might jeopardize their tax-exempt status (Berry 2003). Other studies supported those findings, showing that nonprofits that limited their advocacy cited concernsoften unfoundedabout violating tax-exempt rules (Pekkanen and Smith 2014). ...
This study examines the dynamics of nonprofit engagement in advocacy, lobbying, and civic activities through the lens of bounded rationality. Although 501(c)(3) nonprofits are legally permitted to advocate and lobby on behalf of their constituents and the sector, only 31 % reported engaging in such activities over the past five years. To better understand this relatively low level of involvement, our analysis first investigates nonprofits’ understanding of federal and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations governing permissible activities, as well as the factors that shape their knowledge of these rules. Second, we analyze the relationship between regulatory knowledge and policy engagement, controlling for organizational and contextual variables that are informed by the existing literature. Our findings show that, while internal and external factors can mitigate the constraints imposed by bounded rationality, knowledge of the rules is significantly associated with policy engagement. We conclude that limited understanding of the legal parameters surrounding 501(c)(3) advocacy and lobbying remains a significant barrier to nonprofit policy engagement.
... A diferencia de los enfoques de la sociedad civil y movimientos sociales que parten de cambios estructurales de carácter socio-político, de acuerdo con el enfoque del tercer sector el principal factor explicativo del crecimiento de las ONG es la crisis del Estado del bienestar. La reforma de este modelo de Estado transforma al sector no lucrativo tradicional, convirtiéndolo en una herramienta del gobierno en lugar de una fuente privada de caridad (Jefrey Berry, 2003), 16 Una de las herramientas clave de este proceso es la subcontratación de servicios sociales a través de organizaciones no lucrativas. De acuerdo con esta perspectiva, afectados por una crisis de credibilidad sobre su capacidad para resolver los problemas públicos, los gobiernos se apoyan en las organizaciones del tercer sector para calmar el descontento de los electores ante la ineficacia de los servicios públicos. ...
... El tercer sector cuenta con mecanismos de actuación más flexibles y eficaces que las agencias gubernamentales, que lo convierten en una contraparte ideal en la implementación (Pérez Díaz y López Novo, 2003;Ruiz Olabuenaga, 2006, Zimmer y Freise, 2008. Existe otra cara de la moneda que completa esta relación, al operar gracias a subvenciones, becas y contratos públicos, las organizaciones no lucrativas se adaptan, crecen y aprenden a anticipar las necesidades de los gobiernos (Berry, 2003). Siguiendo las principales aportaciones de la teoría del tercer sector, las ONG pueden definirse de la siguiente forma: Organizaciones con una estructura estable (tienen personal, oficinas e ingresos continuados y miembros que les dan apoyo de forma continuada), formalmente están separadas del Estado (tienen estatutos que especifican su origen, su estructura de gobierno, misión y objetivos). ...
... En algunos casos, la regulación de las ONG limita o impide que actúen abiertamente como grupos que buscan influenciar el proceso político. Berry (2003) expone el caso de Estados Unidos, donde las organizaciones no lucrativas están impedidas por ley a ejercer actividades de presión política bajo el riesgo de perder su estatus no lucrativo que les permite obtener financiación gracias a la deducción de impuestos que consiguen los particulares con donaciones a actividades no lucrativas. ...
El escaso diálogo entre perspectivas teóricas complica un análisis sistemático sobre el papel de las ONG en el proceso político y más en concreto en las políticas públicas. El objetivo de este artículo es hacer una revisión de los diferentes enfoques sobre las ONG utilizados en la ciencia política y señalar algunas de las consecuencias de la fragmentación teórica. Se constata que las perspectivas de la sociedad civil, tercer sector, movimientos sociales y grupos de interés analizan esencialmente el mismo fenómeno: la acción colectiva a través de organizaciones de ciudadanos que defienden una causa concreta pero centrándose en diferentes aspectos de su función en el proceso político y en la definición de las políticas. Finalmente, se propone una definición operativa de las ONG a partir de los enfoques analizados.Palabras clave: ONG, sociedad civil, movimientos sociales, tercer sector, grupos de interés y políticas públicas.
... This is necessary partly because, unlike legal experts and nonprofit practitioners, academic scholars sometimes do not draw sharp contrasts among these terms in their research. For example, Berry and Arons (2003) define "lobbying" quite broadly to include any activity undertaken to influence policymakers' understanding of issues or their action on them, although they acknowledge the legal distinction that exists and study how such regulation limits nonprofits' ability to lobby. Likewise, scholars such as Chaves et al. (2004) interpret the term, "political activity" broadly to accommodate lobbying, advocacy, as well as other activities intended to influence public policy processes, while nonprofit practitioners understand political activity as electioneering that is strictly prohibited. ...
... It should also be noted that the extent of lobbying by nonprofit organizations varies substantially, depending on the level of government they target. Scholars report that nonprofit organizations tend to be much more active in their efforts to interact with lawmakers and influence public policies at the state and local level, as compared to the federal level, because they face less competition from business interest groups, have better access to policymakers, and thus are more successful in lobbying at the lower levels of government (Berry and Arons 2003;Salamon et al. 2008). At the national level, successful nonprofit lobbying is mainly associated with a relatively small group of citizen advocacy organizations whose missions are often related to environmental protection, consumer safety, and various rights-based public interests and societal benefits (Berry 2001). ...
... Many traditional human service agencies that heavily rely on public funding argue that lobbying at any level of government is not part of their typical activities. It is interesting, however, that there are significant differences between H electors (i.e., nonprofits that take the 501-(h) election to be subject to the expenditure test for their lobbying activities) and the other conventional nonprofits who do not elect the H option in terms of the level of knowledge they have about lobbying-related regulations and the extent of actual lobbying activities (Berry and Arons 2003). That is, H electors are much more knowledgeable about government rules regarding participation in public policy and political processes than nonelectors. ...
... We address this gap in the literature by investigating engagement in advocacy among community foundations in the USA, which we define as the effort to influence public policy by proposing or endorsing ideas and by mobilizing stakeholders for social change (Berry and Arons 2005;Jenkins 2006;Reid 2006;Strolovich 2007;Leroux and Goerdel 2009;Guo and Saxton 2010;Mosley 2013). Drawing primarily on organizational sociology, we posit that the environmental context in which community foundations are situated and particular structural characteristics or operational features of community foundations (institutional logics, identity and embeddedness, and managerialism) will be associated with advocacy. ...
... One solution, especially common in political science research, is to define the activity as lobbying and to define an interest group as an organization with lobbying expenditures (Walker 1991;Berry 1999;Mahoney 2007). This approach has the advantage of eliminating ambiguity about the activity being measured, yet lobbying is just one of many different activities that organizations undertake to produce social change (Berry and Arons 2005;Jenkins 2006;Reid 2006;Strolovich 2007;Leroux and Goerdel 2009;Guo and Saxton 2010;Mosley 2013). We develop a broad measure for policy advocacy and its prevalence on websites utilizing machine learning techniques (Wilkerson and Casas 2017). ...
... Because the regulatory frameworks for public and private foundations differ, in other words, we cannot generalize our findings beyond community foundations. At the same time, even though the nonprofit sector has become more politicized over time, considerable misunderstanding persists about which activities are restricted, and public charities are especially unlikely to lobby (Berry and Arons 2005;Bass et al. 2007;Suárez and Hwang 2008;Mosley 2013). Whether the general willingness of foundations to engage in advocacy or the advocacy tactics they utilize differ markedly across institutional forms (public versus private) or even among private foundations (corporate independent, family, and operating) remains an open question. ...
Foundations are much more than disinterested philanthropic institutions that award grants to service-providing nonprofits. Foundations are political actors that seek to produce social change, not only by donating resources to nonprofits that promote causes but also by supporting policy reform in a more direct manner. We investigate engagement in advocacy among community foundations in the USA, which we define as the effort to influence public policy by proposing or endorsing ideas and by mobilizing stakeholders for social change. Drawing primarily on organizational sociology, we posit that the environmental context in which community foundations are situated and particular structural characteristics or operational features of community foundations (institutional logics, identity and embeddedness, and managerialism) will be associated with advocacy. We utilize machine learning techniques to establish an outcome measure of advocacy discourse on community foundation websites and ordinary least squares regression to model that outcome with a cross-sectional dataset compiled from multiple sources. We find considerable support for our conceptual frame, and we conclude by offering an agenda for future research on foundations as interest groups.
... Operating under a series of pressures such as a growing fiscal squeeze, stronger competition with for-profit organizations, and greater emphasis on effectiveness and accountability, NHSOs have to become increasingly market-oriented, formalized, and professionalized (e.g., Frumkin and Andre-Clark 2000;Salamon 2012;Schmid 2013;Ryan 1999). These survival strategies have been accused of hurting the civic foundation of NHSOs and posing threats to their advocacy identity (Alexander, Nank, and Stivers 1999;Berry and Arons 2003;Hasenfeld and Garrow 2012). Recent survey results seem to underscore this concern: although NHSOs generally acknowledge the value of policy advocacy, their actual commitment to policy advocacy is limited (e.g., Berry and Arons 2003;Mellinger 2014;Mosley 2010a;Salamon 2002;Schmid, Bar, and Nirel 2008). ...
... These survival strategies have been accused of hurting the civic foundation of NHSOs and posing threats to their advocacy identity (Alexander, Nank, and Stivers 1999;Berry and Arons 2003;Hasenfeld and Garrow 2012). Recent survey results seem to underscore this concern: although NHSOs generally acknowledge the value of policy advocacy, their actual commitment to policy advocacy is limited (e.g., Berry and Arons 2003;Mellinger 2014;Mosley 2010a;Salamon 2002;Schmid, Bar, and Nirel 2008). In particular, the rise of institutional arrangements such as third-party government (Salamon 1995) and contracting regime (Smith and Lipsky 1993) in the service delivery landscape leads to increasing government use of nonprofits to deliver human services and implement social policies through financial tools such as contracts and grants. ...
... Accordingly, government funding becomes a critical revenue source for most NHSOs (Boris, de Leon, Roeger, and Nikolova 2010;Lu 2015a). As NHSOs become dependent on public funding to varying degrees, there has been some suspicion that these nonprofits would become more focused on service delivery and refrain from advocating government agencies (Alexander et al. 1999;Berry and Arons 2003;Grogan and Gusmano 2009;Hasenfeld and Garrow 2012). As Bass, Abramson, and Dewey (Bass et al. 2014, 260) wrote, "whereas nonprofit organizations historically engaged in advocacy and service delivery, today's nonprofits tend to engage in advocacy or service delivery." 1 3 Chin. ...
Policy advocacy is an indispensable function of nonprofits. With government becoming a critical revenue source, how government funding influences their policy advocacy emerges as a wide concern. This research explores the effect of government funding on nonprofit policy advocacy in three aspects: advocacy participation, advocacy strategy, and advocacy venue. The study finds government funding encourages nonprofit participation in policy advocacy. Along with advocacy participation, government funding increases nonprofit use of both insider and outsider advocacy strategies. Again, when nonprofits decide to advocate insider government systems, government funding motivates nonprofits to advocate administrative agencies over legislative bodies.
... In the political arena, nonprofit organizations engage in public debates, promote positions on policy issues, and offer policy solutions to social problems. Recent research has indicated an emergent scholarly interest in policy advocacy by nonprofits (e.g., Andrews & Edwards, 2004;Bass, Arons, Guinane, & Carter, 2007;Berry, 2003;Garrow & Hasenfeld, 2014;Grønbjerg & Prakash, 2017;Guo & Saxton, 2014;Mosley, 2011;Pekkanen, Smith, & Tsujinaka, 2014). 1 A first research question this large body of literature often examines is what factors shape nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy, because the answers to the question potentially lay the foundation for later explorations of advocacy behaviors and impact (Pekkanen & Smith, 2014a). Drawing on a diverse set of theoretical and empirical approaches, previous research has identified a wide range of organizational and contextual factors that shape nonprofit advocacy engagement decisions, including leadership characteristics, organizational properties, funding dependence, and environmental pressures (e.g., Chaves, Stephens, & Galaskiewicz, 2004;Child & Grønbjerg, 2007;Fyall & Allard, 2017;LeRoux, 2007;Mosley, 2010a;Nicholson-Crotty, 2009;Pekkanen & Smith, 2014b;Suárez & Hwang, 2008). ...
... Despite its merits, recent survey data generally find nonprofits' actual commitment to and participation in policy advocacy vary dramatically (e.g., Bass et al., 2007;Berry, 2003;Child & Grønbjerg, 2007;Mosley, 2010a;Pekkanen & Smith, 2014b;Suárez & Hwang, 2008). For most public charities, policy advocacy is a peripheral activity beyond their core service delivery mission. ...
... Theoretically, formalization could influence nonprofit advocacy engagement in two contrasting ways. It can streamline advocacy engagement by helping establish detailed rules and procedures for advocacy activities, coordinate advocacy efforts among organizational members, and incorporate advocacy workflow into organizational routines (Berry, 2003;LeRoux & Goerdel, 2009). However, it can also undermine nonprofit advocacy due to its emphasis on organizational maintenance and weak response to external constituency needs for social changes (Cain, 1993;Piven & Cloward, 1979). ...
Policy advocacy by nonprofits has attracted substantial scholarly interest in recent years. Although considerable empirical studies have examined factors influencing nonprofit participation in policy advocacy, the existing evidence remains inconsistent as to what factors influence nonprofits to engage in policy advocacy and to what extent. The present study conducts a meta-analysis to quantitatively synthesize existing studies on the organizational antecedents of nonprofit advocacy engagement. Through systematically reviewing 46 studies and aggregating 559 effect sizes on 17 organizational predictors, the study finds organizational size, professionalization, board support, constituent involvement, knowledge about laws, government funding, private donations, foundation funding, collaboration, and negative policy environment have positive and significant relationships with a nonprofit’s level of advocacy engagement. The study contributes a clear knowledge base to guide future nonprofit advocacy research and practice.
... Nonprofit organizations play a critical role in improving community well-being, in part because such organizations deliver goods and services that are desirable, yet underprovided by the market and government. Nonprofits also serve to empower traditionally underrepresented and marginalized populations, including people of color, the poor, and children (Berry & Arons, 2005;Frumkin, 2005;Guo & Musso, 2007). Specifically, nonprofits can play a central role in political and policymaking arenas, building bridges between individuals and the state (Edwards, 2009) by advocating for important policy issues or facilitating civic engagement. ...
... Specifically, nonprofits can play a central role in political and policymaking arenas, building bridges between individuals and the state (Edwards, 2009) by advocating for important policy issues or facilitating civic engagement. They also are seen as better able to understand community concerns than other organizations, which they can bring to policymakers (Berry & Arons, 2005;Jenkins, 2006). Advocacy itself can involve educating the public about laws or policies or urging policymakers to take specific policy positions on issues important to the organization and its members, clients, and constituents. ...
... The nonprofit sector is often seen as a mediating community structure that helps individuals connect to larger, more formal political institutions, learn about policy issues, and express their values in the policymaking processes (Berger & Neuhaus, 1996;Berry & Arons, 2005;Berry & Wilcox, 2009;Guo & Musso, 2007;Jenkins, 2006;Leroux, 2009;Nicholson-Crotty, 2007Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). Nonprofit organizations that interact closely with community members often understand well the local social demands and public opinion, including the needs of marginalized and traditionally underrepresented communities, allowing them to effectively inform elected officials and suggest relevant policy solutions (Ainsworth & Sened, 1993). ...
In recent years, arts and culture nonprofits have sought to make themselves more relevant to community issues by engaging in advocacy. Based on survey data drawn from a national sample of arts nonprofits, this study compares the different levels of advocacy carried out by all arts nonprofits and by minority-led arts nonprofits. To explain the varying levels of advocacy, this study focuses on the diversity of an organization’s constituents and its surrounding community, as well as the ethnic or racial identity and the professional background of its leader. Our results indicate that constituent and community racial and ethnic compositions are associated with the level of advocacy at arts nonprofits. Also, arts nonprofits with leaders who have been in the arts industry for a significant time are more likely to be engaged in advocacy than otherwise similar organizations. We discuss the implication of diversity and professional leadership on arts nonprofits’ advocacy.
... In this way, government funding constitutes a critical revenue source for human service nonprofits and further influences nonprofit operation (Lu, 2015b). Upon receiving government contracts and grants, nonprofits might become more cautious about their advocacy activities so as not to infuriate funding agencies and undermine funding continuity (Bass et al., 2007;Berry, 2003). In addition, to meet government funding requirements, nonprofits become more formalized and professionalized, which further crowds out their attention to advocacy (Alexander, Nank, & Stivers, 1999). ...
... Administrative advocacy is the most common type of advocacy, with more than half of the organizations reporting their participation in each administrative advocacy activity. For human service organizations with service delivery function, working closely with administrative agencies to ensure favorable programmatic administration and outcomes for clients constitutes their daily organizational routine (Berry, 2003;Nicholson-Crotty, 2011). Additionally, because of the legal restrictions on lobbying and other political activities, nonprofits prefer administrative advocacy to other advocacy strategies to manipulate their policy environment (Berry, 2003). ...
... For human service organizations with service delivery function, working closely with administrative agencies to ensure favorable programmatic administration and outcomes for clients constitutes their daily organizational routine (Berry, 2003;Nicholson-Crotty, 2011). Additionally, because of the legal restrictions on lobbying and other political activities, nonprofits prefer administrative advocacy to other advocacy strategies to manipulate their policy environment (Berry, 2003). In contrast, legal advocacy, the most confrontational advocacy option only used as a last resort in most cases (Cheever & deLeon, 2001), was performed by fewer than 10% of organizations. ...
Nonprofit organizations protect the civic foundation of a society by conveying social ailments and injustice to institutional elites. Based on a random sample of 129 human service nonprofits in Maryland, this study examines the organizational factors that influence advocacy participation. Viewing nonprofit advocacy as a legitimacy-building endeavor, this study derives an analytical framework from two theoretical lenses: organizational ecology and organizational institutionalism. The survey indicates that human service nonprofits engage in a variety of advocacy activities, but devote only limited resources to mobilize these efforts. Furthermore, resource competition, government funding, and constituency commitment help explain the variation of advocacy participation by human service nonprofits. The findings have implications for nonprofit education and leadership.
... This implies, for example, that these NPOs opt for a softer or a non-confrontational type of advocacy (Mosley, 2013;Verschuere & De Corte, 2015). This collaborative approach is characterized by frequent and direct contacts that result in an ongoing reciprocal dialogue with relevant policy makers such as politicians or civil servants (Berry & Arons, 2003;Binderkrantz, 2005;Onyx, et al., 2010;Clear, et.al., 2018). In addition, as so-called insiders within the political system, NPOs hereby have a clear ambition to be (or remain) the first provider of information for policy makers that aim to map the effectiveness or efficiency of their (social) policies (Almog-Bar, 2018). ...
... Nevertheless, during the interviews, it was regularly stated that the manager or policy officer can never perform this role from some kind of ivory tower. This is because Voluntas respondents point to a risk of operating in a relatively distinct or separated way from the more service-oriented units within the organization (Berry, 2003;Bass, et al., 2007). Moreover, it is stated that this only leads to a situation in which the advocacy programs and strategies are developed in a rather top-down way and are thus not fully known, supported or nourished by other employees. ...
Under a third-party government regime, NPOs are largely funded to implement social policies and have open lines of communication with policy makers. When performing their advocacy role, questions may, however, arise about whether NPOs actually strive for policy change to structurally improve the lives of their clients or rather aim to secure these organizational benefits. Based upon a case study of 6 youth care organizations in Belgium, this article aims to highlight how such NPOs deliberately try to capture, process and translate a wide array of service delivering experiences within their organization. As such, their advocacy practice is constantly nourished by the micro-level of direct interaction with clients and the meso-level of internal debate amongst the NPOs’ staff. Using the peak of the iceberg as a metaphor, we argue it is important to focus on these more ‘invisible’ parts in which the advocacy claims of service delivering NPOs must be anchored.
... Thus, nonprofit advocacy and lobbying "in the forms of representation and mobilization are regarded as legitimate and important activities for nonprofits to undertake" (LeRoux and Goerdel 2009, p. 515), in which nonprofits "speak for, act for, and look after the interest of their respective groups" (Pitkin 1972, p. 117). However, this existing work often examines nonprofit advocacy that is either primarily focused on efforts to advocate on behalf of the organization's clientele (Bass et al. 2007;Berry and Arons 2005;Fyall 2016Fyall , 2017Fyall and Allard 2017;Fyall and McGuire 2015;Fyall and Levine Daniel 2018;Nicholson-Crotty 2009;Salamon, Geller, and Lorentz 2008;Wiley and Berry 2018) or efforts by large, 1 Many scholars have identified important differences between advocacy and lobbying (Lamothe and Bell 2018), while others use these terms interchangeably. Our study does not seek to investigate the difference among these concepts. ...
... Nonprofits that engage in service delivery and advocate on behalf of clientele face multiple barriers to advocacy activity (Fyall 2017), including practical limitations on staff time and resources (Salamon, Geller, and Lorentz 2008), legal apprehension (Lu 2018) and cultural barriers. In fact, many 501(c)3 public charities are wary of engaging in advocacy and lobbying for fear of losing tax exempt status or becoming too entangled in politics, which could tarnish reputations and lead to a decline in donations (Bass et al. 2007;Berry and Arons 2005;Fyall and Allard 2017). On the other hand, nonprofit advocacy organizations and philanthropic foundations are increasingly engaged in the policymaking process (Buffardi, Pekkanen, and Smith 2017;Grønbjerg and Prakash 2016;LeRoux 2009LeRoux , 2011LeRoux and Krawczyk 2014). ...
Research on nonprofit advocacy has grown in recent years, and many nonprofit organizations have expanded and refined their efforts to influence public policies in ways they believe will benefit society. Despite the growing body of literature on nonprofit advocacy, there is substantial room for development on questions related to public perceptions of nonprofit advocacy activities. Utilizing an experimental design, we examine the ways in which the involvement of a nonprofit organization in the policy process can shift public opinion regarding a specific policy proposal. We also explore how these perceptions vary when we introduce political conflict that questions the effectiveness of the proposed policy. We find that in the absence of political controversy, the involvement of nonprofits in the policy process can significantly increase positive perceptions, relative to the control condition in which there is no mention on nonprofit involvement. However, we also find that the ways in which nonprofit involvement could boost support for a policy proposal may not hold when there is conflict over the policy in question.
... Desde el enfoque del Tercer Sector se considera a las ONGs como el brazo civil de la ejecución de políticas estatales que tienen como papel fundamental mejorar la gobernanza, producto de la desaparición del Estado de bienestar (Berry, 2003;Zimmer & Freise, 2008). Las ONGs serían entonces un aporte para la ejecución de políticas públicas, además de tener un rol en el control y vigilia del Estado. ...
... Esta perspectiva termina por restringir la lectura sobre el potencial de influencia de las ONGs, incluso desde el punto de vista regulatorio que existe en algunos países. Berry (2003) indica que en Estados Unidos las organizaciones no lucrativas no pueden realizar actividades de presión política, y que, si lo hacen, podrían llegar a perder los beneficios impositivos que les permite su financiación. ...
Las revistas científicas son un instrumento de valida-ción y difusión de investigaciones, así como una im-portante herramienta para compartir el conocimiento producido. Este artículo pone de relieve la publicación de estudios vinculados a la comunicación organizacio-nal de uno de los actores frecuentemente marginados: las organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONGs). En este artículo se realiza un estudio bibliométrico de 34 artículos científicos publicados en revistas científicas latinoamericanas indizadas en el Scimago Journal Ran-king (SJR) de Scopus y del catálogo de Latindex, que ha-cen referencia a la comunicación organizacional de las ONGs. Los resultados indican que los aportes teóricos son heterogéneos, aunque el enfoque de la comunica-ción estratégica evidencia un proceso de consolidación. Los métodos más utilizados son la revisión documen-tal y el análisis de casos, lo que sugiere el interés por la construcción de una perspectiva singular y latinoame-ricanista de un área temática que aún se encuentra en etapa incipiente.
... For this reason, they might not advocate in ways that conflict with government policies (Chaves et al. 2004;Reid, 2006;Bass et al. 2007;Pekkanen and Smith 2014b). Second, perceptions of legal rules might suppress nonprofit advocacy (Berry and Arons 2003;Chaves et al. 2004;Pekkanen and Smith 2014b). Nonprofit organizations are unsure whether their organizations are allowed to engage in advocacy if they receive government funding (Berry and Arons 2003). ...
... Second, perceptions of legal rules might suppress nonprofit advocacy (Berry and Arons 2003;Chaves et al. 2004;Pekkanen and Smith 2014b). Nonprofit organizations are unsure whether their organizations are allowed to engage in advocacy if they receive government funding (Berry and Arons 2003). ...
This study innovates by introducing a conceptual distinction between the provision of public services and the receipt of government funding. The study also provides empirical analysis to show that public service provision, independent of government funding, is associated with greater nonprofit advocacy. There are implications for previous studies of nonprofit advocacy, our understanding of the mechanism of nonprofit advocacy, and the role that organizational mission may play in leading organizations to engage in advocacy. Previous studies exploring the effect of government funding on nonprofit advocacy have perceived the provision of public services as being identical to the receipt of government funding. In contrast, our analysis distinguishes between providing public services and receiving government funding. Empirically, the study also uses survey questions differentiating the two in the JIGS international datasets to investigate the relationship. This study examines the effect of the provision of public services by nonprofit organizations on nonprofit advocacy in Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and the USA. We conducted a logistic regression analysis using nonprofit advocacy as the dependent variable. The analysis revealed two key points. First, public service alone and distinct from government funding enhances nonprofit advocacy. Second, public service provision had positive effects on advocacy, not only in the USA but also in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, which each feature a different institutional context. In conclusion, we suggest that organizational mission could be a more important driver of nonprofit advocacy than previous studies have found.
... Yet like most nonprofits, foundations exaggerate the restrictions that government places on them (Berry and Arons 2003). They can actually donate funds for advocacy, though they need to describe such grants as for general expenses rather than earmarking funds for lobbying. ...
... Instead, they scanned the landscape for information on what peer donors were doing and sought guidance and convenings by philanthropic support organizations (Informant E, Informant G, Informant H). Some foundations hesitated to directly address perceived threats for reasons that are familiar to philanthropy scholars: norms of spotlighting grantees rather than their funders (Informant A, Informant I); organizational cultures and boards that discourage risk taking (Informant E); and concerns about violating laws surrounding advocacy and political activity generally (Informant A; Informant J; see also Berry and Arons 2003). After proudly describing the progressive orientation of its programs to help immigrants, one foundation executive then acknowledged that they weren't working with other organizations to fight the administration on the issue because the foundation board was "more on the conservative side, shying away from engaging in public policy" (Informant K). ...
After the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, a self-defined “resistance” movement arose to block his agenda. This movement cut across the normal boundaries of political activism to create new forms of advocacy and new models of cooperation. Major components of the resistance were ideological interest groups, women’s organizations, environmentalists, heretofore disengaged Millennials, racial and ethnic groups, community nonprofits, and, ostensibly, foundations and leading philanthropists—those we term “patrons.” We systematically examine the behavior of patrons to determine what role they played at this unique time in American history. We place this research in the context of interest group behavior, asking how patrons may have facilitated representation, altered strategic plans, reoriented advocacy, and repositioned themselves within policy communities supporting similar goals. Our findings undermine the idea that patrons played a central role in the developing resistance to the new administration, despite the fact that the new president was working against their values and the programs they support. However, a non-trivial minority of patrons, both institutional and individual, did mobilize their voice, institutional resources, and coalitions to resist the Trump agenda. These examples allow us to explore how patrons in some conditions might fulfill the roles of interest groups conventionally understood.
... However, collaborative partnerships can also limit institutional autonomy (Brinkerhoff 1999;Chaves, Stephens, and Galaskiewicz 2004;Guo and Saxton 2010;Onyx et al. 2010;Schmid, Bar, and Nirel 2008). For example, in policy advocacy activities, cooperation among NGOs helps them develop into more formal and professional organizations but, at the same time, restricts their autonomy of initiating or participating in political activities (Berry 2003;Hudson 2002;Onyx et al. 2010). To quest for autonomy, NGOs call for open communication and extensive linkages with each other. ...
Although the significance of NGO cooperation has been recognized in various studies, little is known about how NGOs in authoritarian states engage in collaboration, and few studies examine the outcomes of NGO collaboration from a network perspective. This article utilizes a questionnaire-based method to gather data on 103 environmental NGOs (ENGOs) in China. First, we confirm the existence of collaborative networks among NGOs in 19 provinces and municipalities in China. Then, informed by the social capital theory, we investigate the impact of bridging and bonding structures on network outcomes. The results show that bridging network structures can promote the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental NGOs in collaboration. In contrast, while bonding structures can also improve cooperative efficiency, they are not always effective. Overall, this study highlights the crucial role of central actors in collaborative networks, enriching existing literature and providing valuable insights for policymakers and NGO managers.
... This research demonstrates the importance of local nonprofits-here operationalized as land trusts-in addressing climate change mitigation. In a recent review of political barriers to U.S. climate policy, Basseches et al. (2022) underscores the importance of nonprofits in supporting climate change policy (Berry 2003). Though limited by IRC constraints, nonprofits can make important contributions to the political process by distributing "questionnaires to candidates, interviewing them for endorsements, electioneering, and forming political action committees" (Basseches et al. 2022, 12). ...
Despite substantial progress on understanding the influence of nonprofits in the policy process, the role of nonprofits in local agenda setting remains under-examined. Policy for land conservation is a key plank in climate change mitigation strategies making the role of land trusts in agenda setting for land conservation votes an important topic. Prior studies demonstrate that temperature anomalies increase the likelihood that climate change policy appears on state political agendas. We propose that land trusts play a critical role in facilitating this connection at the local level. Temperature anomalies create a policy window which contributes to the likelihood that conservation measures make it onto the political agenda. Combining temperature, land trust presence, and local conservation vote data from U.S. counties from 2009 to 2019, we find that both temperature anomalies and the presence of land trusts increase the probability that a land conservation measure will appear on the local political agenda. Further, we find that the effect of temperature anomalies on the probability of a vote taking place is conditional on land trust presence within the county. The findings advance existing nonprofit theory on ways in which nonprofits engage in the policy process and hint towards promising avenues of future research. The findings also provide practical evidence for practitioners and hold implications for how local policymakers can leverage existing organizations to implement climate change policy.
... First, organizations may believe that it is part of their mission to educate the public or their constituents about important policy issues. Many interest groups, particularly public interest citizens' groups, exist to advance a cause and are highly mission driven (Berry, 1977(Berry, , 2003. Making policy information as broadly available as possible helps them to fulfill that mission. ...
Interest groups often post about their judicial advocacy on social media. We argue that they do so for two main reasons. First, providing information about the courts on social media builds the group’s credibility as a source of information with policymakers, media and the public. Second, social media provides a way to claim credit for litigation activity and outcomes, which can increase membership and aid in fundraising. Using original datasets of millions of tweets and Facebook posts by interest groups, we provide evidence that interest groups use social media for public education and to credit claim for their litigation activity.
... The dominance of neoliberalism and the evolution of NPM during the 1980s were played out through processes of decentralisation and devolution of government to community-based organisations and to some extent the private sector (Grønbjerg & Salamon, 2002;Kettl, 1997;Salamon, 1995;Smith & Lipsky, 1993). There was a strong anticipation that government contracting of NGOs would affect NGO advocacy because contracted organisations would have to be compliant and uncritical due to the funding arrangements (Berry & Arons, 2003;Smith & Lipsky, 1993). This pressure was evident in the views of the frontline workers participating in this study. ...
Drawing on findings from an Australian study, this article does two things. First, it discusses the neoliberal context and governance that affects the advocacy practice of grassroots human service organisations, supported by Fyall's (2017) idea of "advocate-providers", highlighting governmental barriers to advocacy influencing policy in the national Australian context of a conservative government. Second, the article focuses on frontline human services organisation workers' voices for contributing to domestic and family violence policy development. Applying a feminist framework, the paper focuses on research that enabled expert views of frontline workers' perspectives on a specific national social policy that surrounds their field of services. In presenting outcomes of a democratising feminist research process that sought to overcome the barriers for frontline domestic violence support practitioners to speak out and be heard by policymakers, the paper explores both how the participants felt excluded from the national policy process and their views of the policy they wanted decision-makers to hear. Data derived from frontline workers' and managers' perceptions of the relevance and effectiveness of Australia's federal and state social policy approaches to reducing and addressing violence against women and their children are analysed.
... One striking difference between national and local government is that in cities nonprofits administer many social service programs with funds provided by various levels of government and by private philanthropy. This "nonprofitization" of city services creates partnerships where advocates and administrators sit at the same table to plan and implement new policies (Berry and Arons 2003). This sector also includes universities, hospitals, and charities, which can constitute a significant proportion of any one city's economic activity. ...
This essay provides commentary on the five articles collected for this special issue of Interest Groups & Advocacy on “Interest Groups in U.S. Local Politics.” There are many strengths to be found in these articles but two stand out: first, the articles focus on central issues of contemporary urban society; and second, these works offer a rich mix of methodological approaches to studying city politics. Overall, these articles are notably imaginative and highly original. I offer further analysis by placing them in the broader context of ongoing research on organized interests. In turn, I discuss the low barrier to entry for urban interest groups, mobilization and citizen participation in city policymaking, and how the politics of place distinguishes urban advocacy from Washington lobbying.
... Unfortunately, most non-profits working in this area are 501(c)3 organizations, which are constrained from lobbying and endorsing political candidates by U.S. tax laws (IRS 2021). Philanthropic foundations and the NGOs they fund tend to be extremely cautious about political action, and this makes many of them less effective (Berry 2003). Despite this, these groups fill a special need because they can undertake efforts like distributing questionnaires to candidates, interviewing them for endorsements, electioneering, and forming political action committees. ...
Many U.S. states have taken significant action on climate change in recent years, demonstrating their commitment despite federal policy gridlock and rollbacks. Yet, there is still much we do not know about the agents, discourses, and strategies of those seeking to delay or obstruct state-level climate action. We first ask, what are the obstacles to strong and effective climate policy within U.S. states? We review the political structures and interest groups that slow action, and we examine emerging tensions between climate justice and the technocratic and/or market-oriented approaches traditionally taken by many mainstream environmental groups. Second, what are potential solutions for overcoming these obstacles? We suggest strategies for overcoming opposition to climate action that may advance more effective and inclusive state policy, focusing on political strategies, media framing, collaboration, and leveraging the efforts of ambitious local governments.
... Unfortunately, most non-profits working in this area are 501(c)3 organizations, which are constrained from lobbying and endorsing political candidates by U.S. tax laws (IRS 2021). Philanthropic foundations and the NGOs they fund tend to be extremely cautious about political action, and this makes many of them less effective (Berry 2003). Despite this, these groups fill a special need because they can undertake efforts like distributing questionnaires to candidates, interviewing them for endorsements, electioneering, and forming political action committees. ...
Many U.S. states have taken significant action on climate change in recent years, demonstrating their commitment despite federal policy gridlock and rollbacks. Yet, there is still much we do not know about the agents, discourses, and strategies of those seeking to delay or obstruct state-level climate action. We first ask, what are the obstacles to strong and effective climate policy within U.S. states? We review the political structures and interest groups that slow action, and we examine emerging tensions between climate justice and the technocratic and/or market-oriented approaches traditionally taken by many mainstream environmental groups. Second, what are potential solutions for overcoming these obstacles? We suggest strategies for overcoming opposition to climate action that may advance more effective and inclusive state policy, focusing on political strategies, media framing, collaboration, and leveraging the efforts of ambitious local governments.
... To interpret more fully, the odds of choosing to collaborate with an organization on policy work increase by 2.47 times for each one unit increase on the partner organization's Likert scale for advocacy expertise. Given that many service providing nonprofits avoid policy work for fear of attracting negative attention to themselves and jeopardizing their public funds (Bass et al., 2007;Berry & Arons, 2003), it follows that managers would be attracted to collaboration partners for this activity that have known advocacy expertise and are perceived to have strong leadership and reputations. ...
A truism of modern organizational life is that organizations collaborate. They may collaborate to meet client needs, acquire resources, or gain legitimacy. They may be required to collaborate by funders, but have little direction beyond this basic mandate. In this situation, how do managers choose collaborative partners? What is important to them and when is it important? While institutional and resource-dependence theories emphasize environmental factors driving collaboration, only recently has attention has been given to factors individuals identify as important when making choices about who to collaborate with, and for what purpose. This study uses the repertory grid technique, an innovative method based on personal construct theory, to explore what is important in the minds of nonprofit managers when navigating the world of collaboration and partner selection. The results reveal that managers prioritize different traits when selecting partners depending on the type of collaboration. We conclude with a review of current collaboration theories, where the findings from this study support and deviate from them and offer five new propositions about the complex, situation-dependent nature of partner selection in the minds of nonprofit practitioners.
... constituents about important policy issues. Many interest groups, particularly nonprofit advocacy organizations, exist to advance a cause and are highly mission driven (Berry 1977(Berry , 2003. Mak-ing the information as broadly available as possible helps them to fulfill that mission. ...
Social media provides an inexpensive way for interest groups to inform and mobilize large audiences, but it is puzzling why organizations would spend time posting about activities like litigation that do not depend on public opinion or mobilization. We argue there are two reasons interest groups post about judicial advocacy on social media. First, organizations provide information about the courts on social media to build credibility and recognition as a trusted source of information. We hypothesize that membership groups will be less likely to use social media in this way than non-membership public interest organizations. Second, organizations use social media to claim credit for activity in the courts in order to increase their public and financial support. We expect that this strategy will be used most frequently by legal organizations. Using an original dataset of millions of tweets and Facebook posts by interest groups, we find support for these expectations.
... Still, despite nonprofits having roots within communities (Berry, 2003;Leroux, 2009), board members are often not chosen based solely on their representativeness of the communities they are charged with helping. Nonprofits often attempt to recruit new board members based on the general skills needed by the organization, but this is often a difficult task to find board members with the right skills (Spear et al. 2009). ...
The nonprofit sector is a strong actor in the fight to ensure access to housing and homelessness-related resources in local contexts. Board members who lead these organizations are expected to be committed to organizational missions and goals. However, as housing inequities continue to be tied to metropolitan development patterns, we delve into the complexities of distance and the mismatch between the residency choices of individual board members and the neighborhood in which the organization and its clients are located. We find that a large percentage of board members in our sample of North Texas housing and homelessness-related nonprofits live over 15 miles from where the agency is located and are likely to live in far more wealthy and exclusionary communities than those they serve. We conclude the paper with a conceptual framing for how board members might make sense of this distance, setting the stage for future research.
... It suggests that, while many foundations are willing to support the idea of policy change, just under 10 percent of the grants they fund to address predatory lending obviously support the activities necessary to realize that change. This pattern is consistent with the "educate, don't advocate" axiom shared by many nonprofits (Berry and Arons 2002), and it represents a disconnect between the intentions and actions of grant makers. Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. ...
The Tax Reform Act of 1969 introduced formal legal barriers designed to limit the political activities of foundations. How do these constraints affect foundations’ funding decisions and the capacity of public interest organizations that rely on philanthropic support for their advocacy work? We argue that the policy regime governing private foundations’ work has produced two layers of feedback effects that not only shape philanthropic behavior, but also create real obstacles for grantee organizations and their advocacy efforts. We contend that, particularly for recipient organizations who (1) have a primary mission of political advocacy and mobilization and (2) rely heavily on philanthropic support, the policies governing foundation behavior can create incompatible goals between grantors and grantees pursuing policy change. Drawing on records of grant activity, archival material, and elite interviews, we explore this argument using a salient case study: anti-predatory lending reform. Ultimately, we find that policy restrictions on foundation giving may limit the capacity and threaten the success of advocacy organizations engaged in grassroots political work necessary to promote policy change, thus curtailing the potential for the very reforms foundations are eager to pursue.
... NGOs have been included under the label of 'diffuse' or 'public interest' groups since the early days of interest group studies. Research into NGO political activity in the USA has found that the importance of advocacy to organisations varies widely (Child and Gronberg 2007) and that most NGOs have a very broad definition of what 'advocacy' entails, including participation by members, advocacy towards political actors, companies and cultural organisations (Boris and Steuerle 1998;Berry and Arons 2003). As this implies, NGOs are a diverse category of organisations and have varying objectives, even among those who do lobby. ...
One of the main focal points of studies on interest groups and lobbying has been the different strategies that groups use. Despite the fact that political actions can target both the state and the market, these have not been examined together within either the literature on lobbying or social movements. Moreover, while it is now accepted that groups use combinations of inside and outside strategies, these combinations have been difficult to measure in practice. This paper develops a method for measuring configurations of strategies using principles of qualitative comparative analysis and demonstrates the method’s application to 24 NGO campaigns in Italy and the UK across four issue areas: cage eggs, ocean plastics, antibiotics in farming and digital civil rights. I find that inside and outside strategies are used differently in the state and the market, and that market strategies can be used either to supplement lobbying on public policy or to directly target companies. These findings imply that it is worthwhile including market strategies in studies, as they improve our understanding of the ways in which NGOs address different audiences while lobbying.
... Charitable donors, especially institutional donors, are barred from some of these strategies, notably mounting mass-based or direct lobbying campaigns around specific legislation (except that affecting foundations qua foundations) and trying to influence the fortunes of a candidate or political party. But beyond these important yet narrow restrictions, foundations and individual benefactors have a wide-open field (Berry and Arons 2003). They can sponsor politically relevant research, shape public opinion and agendas, provide operating support to nonprofits that mobilize and lobby, try to influence bureaucrats in charge of administrative regulations, create new paradigms for the delivery of public services, fund lawsuits to block or force policy changes, shore up democratic norms and institutions-the list goes on. ...
Foundations are traditionally viewed as civic-minded but politically neutral organizations. Yet foundations, if they choose, can become involved in a wide variety of activities aimed at influencing public policy. Here we lay out the rationale for thinking about foundations as interest groups in the American political system. There are differences between conventional interest groups and foundations to be sure, but there are similarities as well. The choices foundations make as to whether to consciously try to influence government appears to be guided by organizational norms, regulatory requirements, and the beliefs of boards, donors, and internal leadership.
... Scholars narrate NGOs as key sites of collective empowerment where citizens come together to express a plurality of interests and mobilize to promote change (Diamond 1994;Putnam 1993;Tocqueville (1835Tocqueville ( ) 2003. According to this narrative, NGOs cultivate tolerance, respect, and civic participation among members, serve as watchdogs Voluntas over the state, and act as vehicles through which citizens advance their interests in policy arenas (Berry and Arons 2003). Through their efforts to safeguard and promote the interests of marginalized groups, pluralize the public sphere, and check state power, NGOs are seen as part and parcel of a healthy civil society (Carapico 2012). ...
This article examines foreign aid and government funding to NGOs as forms of patronage and explores the impact of such funding on the nature and role of civil society. Using qualitative research from Palestine and Morocco, we argue that patronage transforms NGOs into apparatuses of governing. NGOs become key sites for the exercise of productive power through the technologies of professionalization, bureaucratization, and upward accountability. The article explores how this transformation of NGOs depoliticizes their work while undermining their role as change agents within civil society. The findings have implications for understanding the transformation of NGOs, the relationship between patrons and their grantees, and, finally, for exploring the limitations of NGOs as vehicles for social change in sensitive political environments.
... In reality, however, the boundaries among civil society, the state, and the market have been blurred, negotiated, and contested for most of American history (Hall 2006;Salamon 1987). The state both regulates civil society's role in governance and depends on that sector as a partner in the delivery of statefunded services (Berry 2003;Salamon 1987;Smith and Lipsky 1993). Likewise, market capitalism generates the wealth that fuels large-scale philanthropy while also producing the negative externalities that philanthropic organizations often address. ...
Introduction to Advancing Philanthropic Scholarship: The Implications of Transformation - Kathryn E. Webb Farley, Kristin A. Goss, Steven Rathgeb Smith
Despite the importance of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 990 to exempt organizations’ regulation, management, and accountability, scholars and practitioners have overlooked how the form evolved over time. This study uses public comments, submitted during the most recent revision of the form in 2007, to examine who participated, stakeholder priorities, and how the updated form was shaped by the federal rulemaking process. The study finds that (a) the submitters of public comments provide a comprehensive view of the nonprofit sector’s diverse set of stakeholders and (b) the public comments highlight substantive self-identified priorities for the sector that can serve as a guide to future research. Key takeaways include the need to consider for-profit and trade association influence in nonprofit policy formation, to recognize selective transparency in reporting requirements, and to understand how stakeholder interests shape regulatory outcomes. Implications suggest researchers should fully leverage Form 990’s extensive changes while remaining cognizant of information gaps.
This chapter contributes to the discussion of public value creation by examining the role of nonprofits in public service delivery through the lens of a specific policy context: veterans services. In this process, we present descriptive data from a sample of 70 nonprofits serving veterans along with qualitative data from in-depth interviews with 13 executive leaders of these organizations. While the chapter is situated in a specific policy context, the case built in our chapter is that nonprofit involvement in service delivery can produce public value in a variety of measurable ways.
What is the nonprofit sector and why does it exist? Collecting the writing of some of the most creative minds in the field of nonprofit studies, this book challenges our traditional understanding of the role and purpose of the nonprofit sector. It reflects on the ways in which new cultural and economic shifts bring existing assumptions into question and offers new conceptualizations of the nonprofit sector that will inform, provoke, and inspire. Nonprofit organization and activity is an enormously important part of social, cultural, and economic life around the world, but our conceptualization of their place in modern society is far from complete. Reimagining Nonprofits provides fresh insights that are necessary for understanding nonprofit organizations and sectors in the 21st century.
What happens to those living at the margins of US politics and policy – trapped between multiple struggles: gender-based violence, poverty, homelessness, unaffordable healthcare, mass incarceration and immigration? In this book, Margaret Perez Brower offers the concept of 'intersectional advocacy' to reveal how select organizations addressing gender-based violence are closing policy gaps that perpetuate inequalities by gender, race, ethnicity, and class. Intersectional advocacy is a roadmap for rethinking public policy. The book captures how advocacy groups strategically contest, reimagine, and reconfigure policy institutions using comprehensive new strategies that connect issues together. As these groups challenge traditional ways of addressing the most pressing social issues in the US, they uncover deep inequities that are housed within these institutions. Ultimately, organizations practicing intersectional advocacy illuminate how to redraw the boundaries of policies in ways that transform US democracy to be more representative, equitable, and just.
Emerging in 2009, the Tea Party movement had an immediate and profound impact on American politics and society. This book draws on a decade's worth of original, extensive data collection to understand why the Tea Party emerged, where it was active, and why it disappeared so quickly. Patrick Rafail and John McCarthy link the Tea Party's rise to prominence following the economic collapse that came to be known as the Great Recession. Paying special attention to the importance of space and time in shaping the Tea Party's activities, Rafail and McCarthy identify and explain the movement's disappearance from the political stage. Even though grassroots Tea Party activism largely ceased by 2014, they demonstrate the movement's effect on the Republican Party and American democracy that continues today.
Marginalized individuals are less likely to participate or have their interests represented in political processes than historically privileged individuals. Interest groups are considered the best means to address this gap, but there is little research on the role of interest groups in mobilizing people to participate in political processes and none on marginalized communities in particular. This paper is the first to test hypotheses about organizational strategies used to mobilize vulnerable communities for political participation around unconventional oil and gas policies in California and Colorado. Based on a survey of interest groups in both states, the results show that interest groups working in vulnerable communities do more outside advocacy (i.e., connecting residents to representatives) and use more personal communication methods (i.e., door-to-door canvassing) than interest groups working in historically privileged communities. However, organizational strategies in general are not well predicted by the target community’s composition, suggesting that decisions around mobilization strategies are driven by other factors.
This article examines the utility of deploying a critical framework–grounded in critical race theory (CRT), feminist theory, and intersectionality–in nonprofit and voluntary studies. We argue that these theoretical perspectives, which emphasize lived experience and sense-making, while simultaneously situating these experiences within broader socio-political and historical contexts, offer a useful analytic lens for centering the narratives and experiences of marginalized or muted voices, which serve to disrupt and dismantle the hegemony of Whiteness and masculinity in nonprofit spaces.
A burgeoning line of research examines nonprofit advocacy, yet few have examined how nonprofits advocate against policy objectives. We explore how groups serve client needs by examining immigrant-serving organizations shaping local enforcement of federal immigration removal policies. We demonstrate how groups have helped to reshape national immigration enforcement through the litigation process. These organizations play a vital role in providing legal aid to individuals facing removal. With information on 1079 nonprofits, we predict regional removal numbers from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We find that the availability of nonprofit pro bono legal aid does predict local removal rates. Regions with greater numbers of pro bono attorney groups produce fewer immigration removals, controlling for other factors. The number of non-attorney advocates in a region predicts fewer non-criminal immigrant removals. This finding is important for both scholars and immigrant advocates at a time of heightened national enforcement.
Few would underestimate the role of non-democratic governments in controlling and steering NGOs. However, this article highlights that in hybrid regimes, the rules for NGO-government and interorganizational relations are not simply dictated from above but actively shaped and sustained by NGOs themselves. Building on data from two policy fields in competitive authoritarian Armenia, this article illustrates that the government sent ambiguous signals to NGOs, thereby cultivating divisions between them. It then shows that, surprisingly, NGOs themselves amplified these divisions. They did so by (1) avoiding confrontation with the government, (2) claiming ownership of their own policy initiatives or ties to government, and (3) distancing themselves from other NGOs. The article explains this behavior by focusing on the institutional environment and perceived uncertainty. In view of a worldwide trend towards increasingly contradictory policy environments for civil society, the approach and findings of this article are of relevance beyond Armenia and beyond competitive authoritarian regimes. Read more here: https://rdcu.be/b6m9j
A growing body of research explores the influence of involuntary criminal justice contact on political participation, demonstrating that all types of contact weaken political participation. We posit, however, that personal connections to civil society organizations (CSOs) moderate the negative effects of involuntary criminal justice contact on political participation, particularly political activism beyond registering to vote and voting. We test this proposition with individual-level and aggregate-level data from metropolitan and municipal Chicago. Our findings confirm a paradox of participation by custodial citizens. One, we demonstrate positive, statistically significant, and substantive effects of personal connections to CSOs on nonvoting political participation by custodial citizens. Two, the negative effects of involuntary criminal justice contact on voting participation among individuals and communities may endure, despite personal connections to CSOs, even in a state where the franchise is restored immediately after incarceration. Our study suggests that an associational account of political participation deepens our understanding of the political behavior of custodial citizens and their communities in the age of mass incarceration.
In light of the foreign interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, the present research asks the question of whether the digital media has become the stealth media for anonymous political campaigns. By utilizing a user-based, real-time, digital ad tracking tool, the present research reverse engineers and tracks the groups (Study 1) and the targets (Study 2) of divisive issue campaigns based on 5 million paid ads on Facebook exposed to 9,519 individuals between September 28, 2016, and November 8, 2016. The findings reveal groups that did not file reports to the Federal Election Commission (FEC)—nonprofits, astroturf/movement groups, and unidentifiable “suspicious” groups, including foreign entities—ran most of the divisive issue campaigns. One out of six suspicious groups later turned out to be Russian groups. The volume of ads sponsored by non-FEC groups was 4 times larger than that of FEC groups. Divisive issue campaigns clearly targeted battleground states, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where traditional Democratic strongholds supported Donald Trump by a razor-thin margin. The present research asserts that media ecology, the technological features and capacity of digital media, as well as regulatory loopholes created by Citizens United v. FEC and the FEC’s disclaimer exemption for digital platforms contribute to the prevalence of anonymous groups’ divisive issue campaigns on digital media. The present research offers insight relevant for regulatory policy discussion and discusses the normative implications of the findings for the functioning of democracy.
What does it mean to integrate nonprofit substance into the Master of Public Administration (MPA) core curriculum in a world of blurred sector boundaries? The potential benefits seem self-evident, including finally gaining legitimacy for those who study and teach about the nonprofit sector. But are there other considerations worth taking into account? This article asks the public administration and nonprofit academy to consider the implications of teaching to blurred boundaries, including a discussion of what to consider when integrating nonprofit theory and practice. It considers what MPA programs determine that students need versus students’ perceived needs, both in relation to community and program needs. Specifically, it asks what integration in the core curriculum might portend for in-depth nonprofit studies, for hiring nonprofit theory specialists, and for maintaining a critical mass of students seeking in-depth nonprofit studies, both theoretical and applied.
As part of a social change agenda, nonprofit organisations engage in activities that contribute to debate and influence the development of public policy. This article presents the initial findings from a study investigating whether nonprofit organisations do participate in advocacy activities and if they do, how are they advocating and engaging in public debate without risking their current and future sources of funding. The key findings from the research have identified that the extent of advocacy by the nonprofit organisations studied has not diminished. A model, built on the findings from the literature on how nonprofit organisations approach advocacy, is applied to explain the advocacy activities by the case study organisations. These nonprofit organisations are identifying what they see to be the appropriate advocacy strategies to fit their organisational objectives, policies, funding sources and resources.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.