Organizational Factors Influencing Advocacy for Children

Report Prepared for The Foundation on Child Development

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Child advocates often face myriad challenges in their attempts to get their issues on the public policy agenda—competing ideas, organizational self-interests, limited resources, an indifferent (or sometimes hostile) political environment, competition from other interest groups for scarce public resources, and more. Yet despite such barriers, some groups are able to overcome these hurdles and make a difference in the lives of children and families. How do they do it? What are the organizational factors that enable nonprofits to engage in public policy advocacy? What kinds of organizations are most active in the policy arena? How do they define success in the policy world?

Based on extensive interviews and focus groups with child advocates in three states (Georgia, Massachusetts, and Washington), this study examines the organizational factors that enable nonprofit organizations in these states to participate actively in the policymaking arena. The study explores organizational structures (such as mission statements, leadership, and communication strategies) and resources that contribute to policy advocacy. The study also asked participants to define "success" in the policy environment.

Six types of child advocacy organizations were identified as actively engaged in state-level advocacy. These organizations had different structures and generally approached the advocacy process from different perspectives. For example,

• Public-private partnerships for children often originated from governors' initiatives or people close to the governor. These organizations were composed of high-level and influential people from government, business, philanthropy, human services, and mainstream community groups, such as the United Way and Junior League. They tended to have relatively easy access to large donors, powerful networks, and political insiders, and often engaged in large-scale public education campaigns or media activities.
• Human service organizations were among the largest groups in the study, with most of their financial resources going toward the delivery of services. Because these groups often received government grants and contracts, they were very familiar with the history and evolution of human service policies, programs, and oversight agencies. Their boards of directors strongly represented the service community, and their advocacy work often focused on budget issues and regulatory reforms.
• Advocacy organizations that represent children and families tended to be oriented toward grassroots mobilizing activities. They advocated for a wide array of children's topics—child care and early education, after-school care, health insurance for children, and so on—and were very deliberate in promoting racial and ethnic representation and community input on their boards. Although these groups probably had the least amount of direct access to influential policymakers, they had legitimacy in the policymaking arena because their members were both consumers of children's services and potential voters.
• Unions and professional associations were both structured as membership organizations and operated through federate systems with federal, state, and local affiliates. Although the state-level units tended to be relatively small, their capacity could be enhanced through financial support and guidance from the national body. These groups promoted child care and early education reforms as a way to improve the quality of care and professionalize the field. These groups, particularly unions, often worked on children's issues through coalitions and strategic alliances. They were, however, very responsive to their members' needs and concerns.
• Intermediary groups provided an array of services and technical assistance (such as information, training, and lobbying) for smaller and mid-sized child advocacy groups. These groups operated on quite small budgets relative to other child advocacy groups and were a hybrid of a professional association and an advocacy group focused on children and parents. They championed a variety of policy issues affecting children and families and tended to function as a voice for underrepresented constituencies, such as minority children. Financially, intermediary groups appeared to be the most vulnerable, but they were an important resource for smaller groups trying to build their capacity.
• Action-oriented think tanks were a fairly new model for child advocacy at the state level. They provided policymakers with well-documented research materials and ran media campaigns to educate the public on children's issues. The work was done by highly skilled and politically savvy staff who often supplemented their research efforts with campaign-style advocacy work, seeking opportunities for media exposure and public mobilization. Financial support for action-oriented think tanks was tenuous and seemed to be based on picking the "right issues" to demonstrate "success."

Defining success sometimes reflected the respondent's role and responsibilities within the organization and the organization's policy goals. As one advocate put it, "If we did not have a variety of ways to define success, we would not be in this business for long." Most answers fell into one of three categories: (1) changing public policies and the political environment, (2) achieving positive social outcomes for children and families, and (3) achieving positive outcomes for the organization.

Conducting child advocacy involves more than generating good ideas. Nonprofits that engage in advocacy need organizational structures, financial resources, good leadership, and active constituencies to carry out their work. As a first step, child advocacy organizations and foundations need to answer the question "capacity for what?" to be strategic about building organizations that have political clout and can get salient policies and issues on the political agenda while increasing participation for underrepresented constituencies. This report, recognizing the diversity of organizational players in the child advocacy arena, offers a series of lessons learned that are targeted at child policy advocates, foundations, and the research community.

INTRODUCTION

Child advocates often face myriad challenges in their attempts to get their issues on the public policy agenda—competing ideas, organizational self-interests, limited resources, an indifferent (or sometimes hostile) political environment, competition from other interest groups for scarce public resources, and more. Yet despite such barriers, some groups are able to overcome these hurdles and make a difference in the lives of children and families. How do they do it? What are the organizational factors that enable nonprofits to engage in public policy advocacy? What kinds of organizations are most active in the policy arena? How do they define success in the policy world?

A team of researchers from the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute investigated these questions, examining how the structure of advocacy groups and the presence of policy networks and coalitions influence the ways nonprofit organizations engage in advocacy campaigns for children's issues at the state and local levels of government. The study looks at three states (Georgia, Massachusetts, and Washington), and explores several salient factors, such as the mission and purpose of the organization; its structure, leadership, and constituencies; and its financial and volunteer resources, to assess how these features influence the policy work of child advocates. The findings of this study provide a framework for developing capacity-building activities for organizations that want to promote policies and programs to improve the quality of child care and early education.¹

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.