Political Advocacy in the Context of “Show Me Your Papers”: How Do Human Services Administrators Respond to Policy Upheaval?

Purpose:  Our Code of Ethics compels social workers to engage in political advocacy to advance social justice, but advocacy is inspired by various motivations. Theory-based studies find that human service organizations engage in advocacy for “organizational” and/or “social” benefit (Garrow & Hasenfeld, 2014).    Do factors that explain advocacy generally also explain advocacy at times of policy upheaval?  Informed by institutional theories explaining political activity and the actions of human service organizations (Scott, 2001), this study addresses the political advocacy of human services administrators in response to a high-profile policy event with substantial social justice implications.   The study tests two hypotheses:  (1) At a time of policy crisis, social work administrators will be more likely to engage in political advocacy than will administrators with other degrees; (2) Administrators will be more likely to engage in advocacy (a) when political activities garner greater legitimacy in the immediate social environment, and (b) if they perceive a threat to core services. 

Methods:  An online survey was conducted in a southeastern state shortly after implementation of a highly-restrictive immigration law.   A probability sample of 400 human services administrators was invited to participate; 53% responded.  The survey measured administrators’ advocacy activities in an organizational role and as a private individual.  It also measured knowledge of immigration policy, attitudes toward immigrants, agency funding sources, and characteristics of the organizational social context.  Multivariate logistic regression was used to test study hypotheses.

Results:  Only 10 percent of human services administrators reported that anyone in their agency had engaged in organization-sponsored advocacy related to the immigration law.   As individuals, only 7 percent had engaged in any advocacy activity.   At a bivariate level, social workers were more likely than administrators with other degrees to have engaged in organization-sponsored advocacy, but the association was not maintained in multivariate models controlling for knowledge about the immigration law, and other factors.   Moreover, social workers were no more likely than other administrators to have engaged in advocacy activities as an individual, resulting in only minimal support for Hypothesis 1.   Organizations that routinely offered non-English services (12% of the organizations) were more than 15 times more likely than other organizations to engage in advocacy activities.   Organizations most likely to engage in advocacy in response to the immigration law were those most directly affected by the law, in a small social network, and at greatest risk of losing clients due to the law, indicating support for both parts of Hypotheses 2.

Implications:  Human service organizations are credited for altruism and efforts to promote social justice.  This study’s findings suggest that in a critical period of policy upheaval, when advocacy to advance social justice was needed, most human services administrators took no political action.   Those who did act were those most likely to perceive an organizational benefit.  Moreover, as individuals, few human services administrators engaged in advocacy activities.  To better reflect the profession’s values and ethics, social work researchers and educators should identify ways to foster advocacy for social benefit, especially at critical times of policy change.