Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-4
How Can Nonprofit Policy Advocacy Influence Policymakers? A Factorial Survey Experiment on the Effects of Nonprofit Advocacy Strategies on Policymakers’ Willingness to Act
This study investigates how policy advocacy strategies employed by nonprofit organizations (NPOs) affect the willingness of policymakers to act upon policy inputs. In a 2 × 2 full-factorial research experiment, we presented 706 Flemish municipal policymakers with four realistic scenarios describing an advocacy campaign of a local welfare nonprofit. In the scenarios, we apply two modes of advocacy tactics (direct or indirect) and two modes of NPO representation (professional staff members or self-advocates). The findings indicate a high likeliness to act on NPO policy inputs throughout the policy process, albeit with a small drop during the formulation stage. Small but significant increases in likeliness to act are noted when policymakers are confronted with either direct advocacy tactics or professional advocates.
AbzugR.GalaskiewiczJ. (2001). Nonprofit boards: Crucibles of expertise or symbols of local identities?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764001301003
AguinisH.BradleyK. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952
4.
Almog-BarM. (2018). Insider Status and outsider tactics: Advocacy tactics of human service nonprofits in the age of new public governance. In Nonprofit Policy Forum (Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 411–428). De Gruyter.
5.
Almog-BarM.SchmidH. (2013). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013483212
AndrewsC. W.de VriesM. S. (2007). High expectations, varying outcomes: Decentralization and participation in Brazil, Japan, Russia and Sweden. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), 424–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307081151
AronsD. F.BerryJ. M. (2003). A voice for nonprofits. Brookings Institution Press.
10.
ArvidsonM.JohanssonH.MeeuwisseA.ScaramuzzinoR. (2018). A Swedish culture of advocacy? Civil society organisations’ strategies for political influence. Sociologisk Forskning, 55, 341–364. https://doi.org/10.37062/sf.55.18196
BaekgaardM.MoynihanD. P.ThomsenM. K. (2021). Why do policymakers support administrative burdens? The roles of deservingness, political ideology, and personal experience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa033
13.
BaguleyT.DunhamG.SteerO. (2022). Statistical modelling of vignette data in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 1143–1163. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12577
14.
BassoliM. (2012). Participatory budgeting in Italy: An analysis of (almost democratic) participatory governance arrangements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(6), 1183–1203.
15.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
16.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D.MortensenP. B. (2018). Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., PP. 55–10). Routledge.
17.
BentleyS. (1995). Merrick and the British campaign to stop immigration: Populist racism and political influence. Race & Class, 36(3), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/030639689503600304
18.
BerryJ. M. (2001). Effective advocacy for nonprofits. In ReidE.MontillaM. (Eds.), Exploring organizations and advocacy: Strategies and finance. Nonprofit advocacy and the policy process: A seminar series (Vol. 2, pp. 1–8). The Urban Institute.
19.
BeyersJ. (2004). Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics, 5(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116504042442
20.
BloodgoodE. A.Tremblay-BoireJ.PrakashA. (2014). National styles of NGO regulation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(4), 716–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013481111
21.
BrownW. A. (2002). Inclusive governance practices in nonprofit organizations and implications for practice. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12404
22.
BuffardiA. L.PekkanenR. J.SmithS. R. (2017). Proactive or protective? Dimensions of and advocacy activities associated with reported policy change by nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(3), 1226–1248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9849-x
23.
BursteinP. (1985). American public opinion, advocacy, and policy in congress: What the public wants and what it gets. Cambridge University Press.
24.
BursteinP.LintonA. (2002). The impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations on public policy: Some recent evidence and theoretical concerns. Social Forces, 81(2), Article 2.
25.
CampbellJ. W.ImT. (2016). PSM and turnover intention in public organizations: Does change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior play a role?Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(4), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X14567366
26.
CaseyJ. (2004). Third sector participation in the policy process: A framework for comparative analysis. Policy & Politics, 32, 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557304773558170
CressD. M.SnowD. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4), 1063–1104. https://doi.org/10.1086/210399
29.
De BruyckerI.BeyersJ. (2019). Lobbying strategies and success: Inside and outside lobbying in European Union legislative politics. European Political Science Review, 11(1), 57–74.
30.
De CorteJ.ArysL.RooseR. (2022). Making the iceberg visible again: Service delivering experiences as a lever for NPOs’ advocacy under a third-party government regime. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 33(3), 561–570.
31.
De CorteJ.VerschuereB. (2014). A typology for the relationship between local governments and NPOs in welfare state regimes: The Belgian case revisited. Public Management Review, 16(7), 1011–1029.
32.
De RynckF.VerschuereB. (2017). De rol van de lokale overheid [The Role of Local Government]. In W. Lahaye, I. Pannecoucke & R. Van Rossem (Eds.), Armoede in België: jaarboek 2017 (pp. 213–243). Skribis.
33.
DodgeJ.OspinaS. M. (2016). Nonprofits as “schools of democracy”: A comparative case study of two environmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015584063
34.
DürA.MateoG. (2014). Public opinion and interest group influence: How citizen groups derailed the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(8), 1199–1217.
35.
DürA.MateoG. (2016). Insiders versus outsiders: Interest group politics in multilevel Europe. Oxford University Press.
36.
EikenberryA. M.KluverJ. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?Public Administration Review, 64(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00355.x
37.
EsterlingK. (2009). The political economy of expertise: Information and efficiency in American national politics. University of Michigan Press.
38.
EversA.LavilleJ. L. (2004). Social services by social enterprises: On the possible contributions of hybrid organizations and a civil society. In EversLavilleJ.L. (Eds.), The Third Sector in Europe (pp. 237–56). Edward Elgar.
FyallR. (2016). The power of nonprofits: Mechanisms for nonprofit policy influence. Public Administration Review, 76(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12550
41.
GenS.WrightA. C. (2018). Strategies of policy advocacy organizations and their theoretical affinities: evidence from Q-methodology. Policy Studies Journal, 46(2), 298–326.
42.
GüemesC.ResinaJ. (2019). “Come together?” Citizens and civil servants dialogue and trust. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 78(2), 155–171.
43.
GuoC.MussoJ. A. (2007). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 308–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006289764
44.
HeikkilaT.GerlakA. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–512.
45.
HermanR. D.RenzD. O. (2004). Doing things right: Effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations, a panel study. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 694–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00416.x
46.
HongS. (2015). Citizen participation in budgeting: A trade-off between knowledge and inclusiveness?Public Administration Review, 75(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12377
47.
HwangH.PowellW. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268–298.
48.
JangH. S.FeiockR. (2007). Public versus private funding of nonprofit organizations: Implications for collaboration. Public Performance & Management Review, 31, 174–190. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576310202
49.
JonesB. D. (2003). Bounded rationality and political science: Lessons from public administration and public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 395–412.
50.
JonesB. D.BousheyG.WorkmanS. (2006). Behavioral rationality and the policy processes: Toward a new model of organizational information processing. In. B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 49–75). Sage Publications.
51.
JunK.-N.ShiauE. (2012). How are we doing? A multiple constituency approach to civic association effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 632–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011415119
52.
JunkW. M.CrepazM.HanegraaffM.BerkhoutJ.AizenbergE. (2022). Changes in interest group access in times of crisis: No pain, no (lobby) gain. Journal of European Public Policy, 29(9), 1374–1394. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2021.1968936
53.
KollmanK. (1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton University Press.
54.
LerouxK. (2007). Nonprofits as civic intermediaries: The role of community-based organizations in promoting political participation. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087406292257
55.
LuJ. (2018). Organizational antecedents of nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy: A meta-analytical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4_suppl), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018769169
56.
MansbridgeJ. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.”The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647821
57.
MigchelbrinkK.Van de WalleS. (2022). A systematic review of the literature on determinants of public managers’ attitudes toward public participation. Local Government Studies, 48(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2021.1885379
MosleyJ. E. (2012). Keeping the lights on: How government funding concerns drive the advocacy agendas of nonprofit homeless service providers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 22(4), Article 4.
60.
MosleyJ. E. (2013). The beliefs of homeless service managers about policy advocacy: Definitions, legal understanding, and motivations to participate. Administration in Social Work, 37(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2012.656221
61.
MosleyJ. E. (2016). Nonprofit organizations’ involvement in participatory processes: The need for democratic accountability. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 7(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2015-0038
62.
MosleyJ. E.GibsonK. (2017). Strategic use of evidence in state-level policymaking: Matching evidence type to legislative stage. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 697–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-017-9289-x
63.
MosleyJ. E.SuárezD. F.HwangH. (2023). Conceptualizing organizational advocacy across the nonprofit and voluntary sector: Goals, tactics, and motivation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52, 187S–211S. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221103247
64.
MoynihanD. P. (2003). Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation: Citizen Summits in Washington, D.C. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074003251379
65.
NalbandianJ. (1999). Facilitating community, enabling democracy: New roles for local government managers. Public Administration Review, 59(3), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.2307/3109948
66.
NeumayrM.SchneiderU.MeyerM. (2013). Public funding and its impact on nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013513350
67.
PaulyR.VerschuereB.De RynckF.VoetsJ. (2021). Changing neo-corporatist institutions? Examining the relationship between government and civil society organizations in Belgium. Public Management Review, 23(8), Article 8.
68.
PekkanenR.SmithS.TsujinakaY. (2014). Nonprofits and advocacy: Engaging community and government in an era of retrenchment. JHU Press.
69.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective (1st ed.). Stanford Business Books.
70.
RasmussenA.CarrollB. J.LoweryD. (2014). Representatives of the public? Public opinion and interest group activity. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12036
71.
ReesS. (1998). Effective nonprofit advocacy. Aspen Institute, Nonprofit Sector Research Fund.
72.
SabatierP. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/419923
73.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022058200985
74.
SalamonL. M.SokolowskiS. W. (2016). Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 1515–1545.
75.
SimonH. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), Article 6.
76.
SouleS. A.OlzakS. (2004). When do movements matter? The politics of contingency and the equal rights amendment. American Sociological Review, 69(4), 473–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900401
77.
SuarezD. (2011). Collaboration and professionalization: The contours of public sector funding for nonprofit organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq049
78.
TaylorB. J. (2006). Factorial surveys: Using vignettes to study professional judgement. The British Journal of Social Work, 36(7), Article 7.
TreschA.FischerM. (2015). In search of political influence: Outside lobbying behaviour and media coverage of social movements, interest groups and political parties in six Western European countries. International Political Science Review, 36(4), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512113505627
81.
VerschuereB.De CorteJ. (2014). The impact of public resource dependence on the autonomy of NPOs in their strategic decision making. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012462072
82.
VerschuereB.De CorteJ. (2015). Nonprofit advocacy under a third-party government regime: Cooperation or conflict?VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(1), Article 1.
83.
VerschuereB.SuykensB. (2020). Effectiveness and efficiency of nonprofit organizations. In ListR. A.AnheierH. K.ToeplerS. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society (pp. 1–7). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99675-2_116-1
84.
WardK. D.MasonD. P.ParkG.FyallR. (2023). Exploring nonprofit advocacy research methods and design: A systematic review of the literature. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52, 1210–1231. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221131747
85.
WeibleC. M.CarterD. P. (2017). Advancing policy process research at its overlap with public management scholarship and nonprofit and voluntary action studies. Policy Studies Journal, 45(1), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12194
86.
WoutersR.WalgraveS. (2017). Demonstrating power: How protest persuades political representatives. American Sociological Review, 82(2), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417690325
87.
YangK.PandeyS. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes?Public Administration Review, 71(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02417.x
88.
ZhangZ.GuoC. (2020). Together making a difference: A configurational study of nonprofit advocacy effectiveness. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1724163
89.
ZhangZ.GuoC. (2021). No advocacy without representation? Nonprofit representational mix and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 32(2), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21479
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
