Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Policy advocacy is widely regarded as an eminent feature of nonprofit organizations’ activities, allowing them to represent their constituencies. The article presents a literature review of research on nonprofit policy advocacy that has been published over the last decade, focusing on advocacy by nonprofit human service organizations (NPHSOs) and its unique characteristics and contributions. The review focuses on several key topics, including: the definitions and origins of the term advocacy and its current uses in studies related to NPHSOs; the current situation and prevalence of NPHSO advocacy activities; organizational and structural variables as they relate to policy advocacy; dependence on external funding sources and policy advocacy; strategies, tactics, modes of operation, and the effectiveness of NPHSO policy advocacy. The article presents and discusses the implications of this research and suggests directions for future research.

This article examines the role of the Corston Independent Funders’ Coalition (CIFC), a group of grant-making trusts and foundations that came together in 2008 to take a direct and active advocacy role. Using an existing policy reform blueprint, CIFC aimed to influence government policy on the treatment of women in the United Kingdom’s criminal justice system. Conceptualizing the CIFC as an ad hoc advocacy network, the authors use a retrospective mixed-methods approach to explore the context that gave rise to the CIFC, examine the setting-up and operation of the network, and reflect on its achievements. The case highlights some of the tensions associated with advocacy networks and points toward the challenges of defining and building identity in a preoccupied policy space. It raises questions about whether and how established foundations might be able to take on a more direct policy advocacy role.

How are nonprofit organizations utilizing social media to engage in advocacy work?   We address this question by investigating the social media use of 188 501(c)(3) advocacy organizations.   After briefly examining the types of social media technologies employed, we turn to an in-depth examination of the organizations’ use of Twitter. This in-depth message-level analysis is twofold: A content analysis that examines the prevalence of previously identified communicative and advocacy constructs in nonprofits’ social media messages; and an inductive analysis that explores the unique features and dynamics of social media-based advocacy and identifies new organizational practices and forms of communication heretofore unseen in the literature.

Studies of advocacy by nonprofit human-service organizations generally fail to distinguish between two major types of advocacy—advocacy for social benefits versus organizational benefits. We show that different organizational factors explain the emphasis on each type of advocacy. We use an institutional logics perspective, with its emphasis on the moral frames organizations adopt, as our theoretical framework. We propose that two organizational mechanisms express these moral frames—selection of a practice frame and location decision—and shape the substance of advocacy. Analyzing a probability sample of these organizations, we find that a practice frame that places the clients’ problems on the environment rather than the individual is positively associated with advocacy for social benefits. Similarly, organizations that express their moral commitment to locate in high-poverty areas are more likely to advocate for social benefits. We conclude with some implications on the role of advocacy in a neoliberal regime.

This article offers a Bourdieu-inspired organizational analysis of advocacy nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Pierre Bourdieu’s writings provide valuable propositions for understanding nonprofit advocacy resources that go beyond commonly analyzed economic, human, or social resources. The article describes the relational, accumulative, and transferable nature of Bourdieu’s forms of capital, and connects them to advocacy NGOs. By examining the forms of capital at the disposal of advocacy NGOs involved in the conflict between the State of Israel and the Negev Bedouin, the article empirically illustrates the applicability of Bourdieu’s ideas for the analysis of advocacy resources. The questions addressed are “How are NGOs using the various forms of capital to influence public perceptions and access decision-making forums?” and “What are the implications for nonprofit advocacy research?” Bourdieu’s theory could help nonprofit scholars better understand the prospect and limits of nonprofit advocacy within policy fields.

Intensive interviews were conducted with CEOs and board chairs (n = 18) to explore the criteria they use to compare and contrast funding sources common to nonprofit organizations. The interview protocol used in the study is distinctive for: (1) the amount of data it generates from relatively few interviews, and (2) its power in eliciting the underlying values and assumptions of interviewees rather than imposing the researcher’s frame of reference as is the case with traditional forced-choice questionnaires and interview protocols. The nonprofit leaders who were interviewed in this exploratory study seem to employ a strategic perspective in their evaluation of funding sources, asserting to the researchers that they use evaluative criteria such as the extent to which the funding source can catalyze other resources, the alignment of the funding source with the mission of the organization, and the sustainability of the funding source over time.

Studies into the factors influencing first-time monetary donation intention abound. However, the determinants of repeat donation intention have not yet received significant attention within the academic community. For this study, a survey was implemented with residents of two cities in the eastern part of the Netherlands to determine the factors influencing their repeat donation intention. The study shows that respondents’ intention to continue donating to a charitable organization is predicated on their positive experience with that organization. Furthermore, this repeat donation is also influenced by respondents’ affinity with the cause of the charitable organization, their trust in the organization, and the organization’s positive reputation. The perceived risk of donating negatively influences repeat donation intention. It is surprising, however, that a sense of moral obligation to help others does not impact respondents’ intention to continue donating.

Recent research indicates that consumers associate nonprofit organizations mainly with the trait “warmth,” whereas for-profit organizations are perceived as being “competent.” Trustworthiness is another dimension of consumer perceptions of nonprofit organizations. This article attempts to combine two strands of research: Aaker, Vohs, and Mogilner’s research on perceptions of warmth and competence and Handy et al.’s and Schlesinger, Mitchell, and Gray’s research on individuals’ perceptions of trustworthiness in nonprofits. Our study indicates that “warmth,” “trustworthiness,” and “competence” are distinct dimensions of patient perceptions of hospitals. Perceptions of these traits vary across different manifestations of ownership status. Nonprofit hospitals are perceived as more trustworthy and warm but less competent than their for-profit competitors. With nonurgent care, analysis shows that only trustworthiness and competence influence patients’ hospital evaluations. Nonprofit hospitals should try to make their ownership status public as well as to alleviate detrimental deviations of perceived competence from actual competence.

Social, economic, and political transformations have traditionally complicated the balance between individual liberties and common good (or national needs). In times of war this balance appears more fragile and—given the role of philanthropy in the formation of identities—philanthropic studies as a field should pay more attention to these dynamics. Accordingly, in this article, the author investigates the impact of World War 1 on the German-American community. Through the historical case study of one German-American voluntary association based in Indianapolis, the author dismisses both ethnic disappearance and ethnic survival theories. In contrast, the author proposes a more nuanced approach to the processes of assimilation of minority groups. The author contends that German-Americans did not lose the battle for survival but for pluralism and suggests that in times of economic as well as social transformations homogenizing forces tend to silence alternative voices in American society.