How Can Nonprofit Policy Advocacy Influence Policymakers? A Factorial Survey Experiment on the Effects of Nonprofit Advocacy Strategies on Policymakers’ Willingness to Act

Abstract

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.

Keywords

nonprofit advocacy policy advocacy advocacy effectiveness factorial survey

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abzug

Galaskiewicz

(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

Agentschap Binnenlands Bestuur. (2023). Personen met een (equivalent) leefloon (Gemeente-Stadsmonitor). https://gemeentemonitor.vlaanderen.be/personen-met-een-equivalent-leefloon

Aguinis

Bradley

K. 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

Almog-Bar

(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.

Almog-Bar

Schmid

(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

Andeweg

R. B.

(2000). Consociational democracy. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 509–536. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.509

Andrews

C. W.

de Vries

M. 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

Andrews

K. T.

Edwards

(2004). Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110542

Arons

D. F.

Berry

J. M.

(2003). A voice for nonprofits. Brookings Institution Press.

10.

Arvidson

Johansson

Meeuwisse

Scaramuzzino

(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

11.

Auspurg

Hinz

(2014). Factorial survey experiments. Sage.

12.

Baekgaard

Moynihan

D. P.

Thomsen

M. 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.

Baguley

Dunham

Steer

(2022). Statistical modelling of vignette data in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 113(4), 1143–1163. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12577

14.

Bassoli

(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.

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

16.

Baumgartner

F. R.

Jones

B. D.

Mortensen

P. B.

(2018). Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In Weible

C. M.

Sabatier

P. A.

(Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., PP. 55–10). Routledge.

17.

Bentley

(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.

Berry

J. M.

(2001). Effective advocacy for nonprofits. In Reid

Montilla

(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.

Beyers

(2004). Voice and access: Political practices of European interest associations. European Union Politics, 5(2), 211–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116504042442

20.

Bloodgood

E. A.

Tremblay-Boire

Prakash

(2014). National styles of NGO regulation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(4), 716–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013481111

21.

Brown

W. 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.

Buffardi

A. L.

Pekkanen

R. J.

Smith

S. 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.

Burstein

(1985). American public opinion, advocacy, and policy in congress: What the public wants and what it gets. Cambridge University Press.

24.

Burstein

Linton

(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.

Campbell

J. W.

(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.

Casey

(2004). Third sector participation in the policy process: A framework for comparative analysis. Policy & Politics, 32, 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557304773558170

27.

Cools

Oosterlynck

(2020). De politieke rol van de verenigingen waar armen het woord nemen [The Political Role of Associations Where People in Poverty Raise Their Voice]. https://www.middenveldinnovatie.be/MIDDENVE/SITES/DEFAULT/FILES/2020_03/CASESTUD.PDF

28.

Cress

D. M.

Snow

D. A.

(2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4), 1063–1104. https://doi.org/10.1086/210399

29.

De Bruycker

Beyers

. (2019). Lobbying strategies and success: Inside and outside lobbying in European Union legislative politics. European Political Science Review, 11(1), 57–74.

30.

De Corte

Arys

Roose

(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 Corte

Verschuere

(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 Rynck

Verschuere

. (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.

Dodge

Ospina

S. 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.

Dür

Mateo

(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.

Dür

Mateo

(2016). Insiders versus outsiders: Interest group politics in multilevel Europe. Oxford University Press.

36.

Eikenberry

A. M.

Kluver

J. 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.

Esterling

(2009). The political economy of expertise: Information and efficiency in American national politics. University of Michigan Press.

38.

Evers

Laville

J. L.

(2004). Social services by social enterprises: On the possible contributions of hybrid organizations and a civil society. In Evers Laville

J.L.

(Eds.), The Third Sector in Europe (pp. 237–56). Edward Elgar.

39.

Fung

(2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x

40.

Fyall

(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.

Gen

Wright

A. C.

(2018). Strategies of policy advocacy organizations and their theoretical affinities: evidence from Q-methodology. Policy Studies Journal, 46(2), 298–326.

42.

Güemes

Resina

(2019). “Come together?” Citizens and civil servants dialogue and trust. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 78(2), 155–171.

43.

Guo

Musso

J. 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.

Heikkila

Gerlak

A. K.

(2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–512.

45.

Herman

R. D.

Renz

D. 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.

Hong

(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.

Hwang

Powell

W. W.

(2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268–298.

48.

Jang

H. S.

Feiock

(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.

Jones

B. 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.

Jones

B. D.

Boushey

Workman

(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.

Jun

K.-N.

Shiau

(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.

Junk

W. M.

Crepaz

Hanegraaff

Berkhout

Aizenberg

(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.

Kollman

(1998). Outside lobbying: Public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton University Press.

54.

Leroux

(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.

(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.

Mansbridge

(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.

Migchelbrink

Van de Walle

(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

58.

Mintrom

Norman

(2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00329.x

59.

Mosley

J. 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.

Mosley

J. 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.

Mosley

J. 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.

Mosley

J. E.

Gibson

(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.

Mosley

J. E.

Suárez

D. F.

Hwang

(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.

Moynihan

D. 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.

Nalbandian

(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.

Neumayr

Schneider

Meyer

(2013). Public funding and its impact on nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013513350

67.

Pauly

Verschuere

De Rynck

Voets

(2021). Changing neo-corporatist institutions? Examining the relationship between government and civil society organizations in Belgium. Public Management Review, 23(8), Article 8.

68.

Pekkanen

Smith

Tsujinaka

(2014). Nonprofits and advocacy: Engaging community and government in an era of retrenchment. JHU Press.

69.

Pfeffer

Salancik

G. R.

(2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective (1st ed.). Stanford Business Books.

70.

Rasmussen

Carroll

B. J.

Lowery

(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.

Rees

(1998). Effective nonprofit advocacy. Aspen Institute, Nonprofit Sector Research Fund.

72.

Sabatier

P. 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.

Salamon

L. M.

Anheier

H. 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.

Salamon

L. M.

Sokolowski

S. W.

(2016). Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 1515–1545.

75.

Simon

H. A.

(1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), Article 6.

76.

Soule

S. A.

Olzak

(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.

Suarez

(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.

Taylor

B. J.

(2006). Factorial surveys: Using vignettes to study professional judgement. The British Journal of Social Work, 36(7), Article 7.

79.

Teles

Schmitt

(2011). The elusive craft of evaluating advocacy (SSIR). https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elusive_craft_of_evaluating_advocacy

80.

Tresch

Fischer

(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.

Verschuere

De Corte

(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.

Verschuere

De Corte

(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.

Verschuere

Suykens

(2020). Effectiveness and efficiency of nonprofit organizations. In List

R. A.

Anheier

H. K.

Toepler

(Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society (pp. 1–7). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99675-2_116-1

84.

Ward

K. D.

Mason

D. P.

Park

Fyall

(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.

Weible

C. M.

Carter

D. 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.

Wouters

Walgrave

(2017). Demonstrating power: How protest persuades political representatives. American Sociological Review, 82(2), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417690325

87.

Yang

Pandey

S. 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.

Zhang

Guo

(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.

Zhang

Guo

(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.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.16 MB

0.01 MB