Gauging Policymakers Willingness to act as a measure of NPO-driven policy advocacy effectiveness. Insights from a Mixed-Method Study Targeting Flemish Local Governments

• In Event: Advocacy and Structural Social Work

Abstract

Driven by increasing expectations to hold accountable non-profit organizations to constituents, donors and funders (Faulk et al., 2012), there is a growing interest in the study of policy advocacy effectiveness (PAE) of nonprofits (Lecy et al., 2012; Willems et al., 2014; Jun & Shiau, 2012).

The interest in gauging PAE partly stems from diffuse charges by nonprofit researchers that the capacity of NPOs to engage in their role as ‘civic intermediaries’ is eroding because of either organizational mission drift, tightening regulatory frameworks, shrinking spaces for civil society or increasing competition with private actors (Frumkin & Andre-Clark, 2000; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Mosley, 2011; Skocpol, 2013). Remarkably, despite these concerns that are raised relatively few studies focus on the evaluation of outcomes indicating PAE (Johansen & LeRoux, 2013, Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2014; Buffardi et al., 2017; Ward et al., 2023). This makes it difficult to meaningfully discuss how successful NPOs are in their role as ‘civic intermediaries’(LeRoux, 2007).

We build upon the multiple constituency model, which views effectiveness as a social construct formed by the agendas, expectations and interests of all the different stakeholders involved in advocacy efforts (Jun & Shiau, 2012). We argue more specifically that the effectiveness of policy advocacy is dependent on the extent to which policymakers are willing to act upon nonprofit policy inputs (Pauly et al., 2021). This approach is quite commonly applied in literature on participatory policymaking, as it provides a clear measure of PAE attributable to specific advocacy efforts.

Our mixed-method study explored the impact of various policy influence campaigns by government funded human service welfare nonprofits on the actions of municipal policymakers.

First, we present results from a survey experiment administered to 706 Flemish municipal policymakers (elected officials and civil servants). Our findings shed light on how different types of advocacy campaign are experienced in practice and which forms of policy influence prove most effective during various stages of the policy process. Policymakers are found to be more receptive to policy influence during the agenda-setting and decision-making phases, with professionalized and direct forms of advocacy strategies being preferred.

Secondly, we present lessons learned from 15 interviews with aldermen responsible for poverty and welfare issues, their principal policy advisors, and the civil servants responsible for social services in six large Flemish municipalities. We inquired about their perceptions of different campaign types and how these influenced their willingness to act in response to policy input by NPOs. We also explored the nature of the actions they were inclined to take.

These results provide valuable insights for both policymakers seeking to understand the policy influence process and for organizations seeking effective ways to influence the policy process.

References

Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 43(1), 11-35.

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, 1226-1248.

Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?. Public administration review, 64(2), 132-140.

Faulk, L., Lecy, J. D., & McGinnis, J. (2012). Nonprofit competitive advantage in grant markets: Implications of network embeddedness. Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series No. 13-07.

Frumkin, P., & Andre-Clark, A. (2000). When missions, markets, and politics collide: Values and strategy in the nonprofit human services. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 29(1_suppl), 141-163.

Johansen, M., & LeRoux, K. (2013). Managerial networking in nonprofit organizations: The impact of networking on organizational and advocacy effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 73(2), 355-363.

Jun, K. N., & Shiau, E. (2012). How are we doing? A multiple constituency approach to civic association effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 632-655.

Pauly, R., Verschuere, B., De Rynck, F., & Voets, J. (2021). Changing neo-corporatist institutions? Examining the relationship between government and civil society organizations in Belgium. Public management review, 23(8), 1117-1138.

Lecy, J. D., Schmitz, H. P., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 434–457.

LeRoux, K. (2007). Nonprofits as civic intermediaries: The role of community-based organizations in promoting political participation. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 410-422.

Mosley, J. E. (2011). Institutionalization, privatization, and political opportunity: What tactical choices reveal about the policy advocacy of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 40(3), 435-457.

Skocpol, T. (2013). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life (Vol. 8). University of Oklahoma press.

Ward, K. D., Mason, D. P., Park, G., & Fyall, R. (2023). Exploring nonprofit advocacy research methods and design: A systematic review of the literature. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52(5), 1210-1231.

Willems, J., Boenigk, S., & Jegers, M. (2014). Seven trade-offs in measuring nonprofit performance and effectiveness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 1648-1670.

Authors

• Aaron Brusseel, Universiteit Antwerpen

• Peter Raeymaeckers, University of Antwerp

• Bram Verschuere, Ghent University