Final Lines of Defense: Explaining Policy Advocacy by Immigrant-Serving Organizations

Author:

Calderon Maria Apolonia1,Chand Daniel E.2,Hawes Daniel P.2

Affiliation:

1. School of Public Policy , University of Maryland , College Park , MD , USA

2. Department of Political Science , Kent State University , Kent , OH , USA

Abstract

Abstract Nonprofit scholars have developed a rich literature on nonprofit advocacy. While the literature is rich, however, gaps remain in our collective knowledge, especially regarding specific sectors of nonprofit human service organizations. Here, we apply existing theory on advocacy by human service organizations to an important subset of the nonprofit community, that being immigrant-serving organizations (ISOs). Most prior research on nonprofit advocacy has not focused on politically polarized issues, such as contemporary immigration policy. Using a nationwide survey of ISOs, we find that unlike other types of human service organizations, the majority of ISOs do engage in at least some forms of policy advocacy. However, those that report using the H-election status on their Form 990s are significantly more likely to engage in advocacy and do so to a wide variety of policymakers, including legislators, chief executives, and even local law enforcement agencies. H-election groups are also more likely to perceive their advocacy activities as effective. These findings add to the evolving knowledge on when and how human service groups seek policy change for marginalized groups.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Public Administration,Economics and Econometrics,Sociology and Political Science

Reference78 articles.

1. Almog-Bar, M., and H. Schmid. 2014. “Advocacy Activities of Nonprofit Human Service Organizations: A Critical Review.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43 (1): 11–35, https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013483212.

2. Bass, G. D., D. F. Arons, K. Guinane, M. F. Carter, and S. Rees. 2007. Seen but Not Heard: Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

3. Baumgartner, F. R., J. M. Berry, M. Hojnacki, B. L. Leech, and D. C. Kimball. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

4. Bennett, B. 2014. “High Deportation Figures are Misleading.” The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. April 14. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html (accessed December 25, 2017).

5. Berman, E., and X. H. Wang. 2011. Essential Statistics for Public Managers and Policy Analysts. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3