What It Means to Be A Member: The Interaction Between Nonprofit Advocacy Coalitions and Their Members in An Era of Privatization

Purpose: Involvement in advocacy coalitions is often cited as an ideal way for social service organizations to become involved in advocacy. However, little is known about the process by which coalitions shape and structure advocacy opportunities at the field level. This research investigates how coalition members experience the utility of membership, how those perceptions shift depending on organizational resources, and the implications for social work advocacy. Two research questions are addressed. First, how do organizational characteristics, such as size, professionalization, and amount of government funding, affect which coalitions organizations join and how active they become? Second, how has increased dependence on government funding shaped coalition behavior and incentives for members?

Methods: Qualitative methods were used in order to capture relational and field level processes. Data was fully triangulated through the in-depth study of one regional policy field. Homeless services was chosen due to the major policy shifts that have occurred with recent growth in municipal 10-year plans to “end homelessness.” A stratified random sample was chosen from a regional population of 84 homeless service nonprofits. In-depth interviews were conducted with the leaders of 42 organizations. The response rate was 81%; data was collected from exactly half the population. Interview data was supplemented with participant observation at coalition meetings and other field-level gatherings. Each transcribed interview was independently coded by two researchers. The coding scheme followed both inductive and deductive techniques, using pre-determined codes, reflecting prior topics of interest, and emergent codes that reflected new insights.

Results: Advocacy engagement was very high (93%) and every respondent engaged in advocacy also participated in coalitions. Mid-sized nonprofits with professionalized leaders looking to increase agency name recognition were most active as they felt membership would increase their access to government administrators. Large organizations with significant government funding tended to forgo coalitions in order to have more control over their message and build legitimacy directly with potential government funders. Organizations joined coalitions based on the coalition's reputation in the policy field, ability to connect members to valuable government contacts, and ability to signal organizational priorities (e.g. commitment to “authenticity” and the poor vs. commitment to professional services and working within current policy constraints). Changes in the funding and institutional environment have led coalitions to make significant adaptations, such as moderating their tactics and engaging in long-term collaborations with government. These changes on the part of coalitions have likewise shaped the way their members identify appropriate outlets for advocacy with a greater focus on maintaining government funding streams and reduced focus on challenging current policy priorities.

Implications: Involvement in coalitions shapes advocacy opportunities at the field level in ways that go beyond simple facilitation of involvement. By shaping messages and choice of tactics, coalitions structure long-term funding relationships between social service fields (like homeless services) and government decision-makers. Findings suggest that joining coalitions is useful for building organizational legitimacy and gaining access to policymakers and funders. However, managers should consider carefully the ways in which coalitions may constrain as well as enable their advocacy agendas.