Giving Voice: Examining the Tactical Repertoires of Nonprofit Advocacy for Disadvantaged Populations

5.1 Data and Sample

To investigate the types and effectiveness of advocacy tactics utilized by nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations, we draw on a survey of Massachusetts nonprofits. The 35-item online survey of nonprofit executive directors collected data about organizational features, the use of advocacy tactics, and the perceived effectiveness of policy advocacy. The survey was administered via Qualtrics in 2014–15 to a nonprofit sample that included members of the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network (MNN) (N = 551) and a matched sample of nonprofits (N = 642) drawn from the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) Business Master File (BMF) for Massachusetts. MNN is a statewide organization that supports the nonprofit sector via capacity building and advocacy. The combined sample response rate was 55 % (N = 657), with 67 % (N = 368) of MNN members responding and 45 % (N = 289) of non-members responding. The sample was stratified by mission, proximity to Boston, and size. The sample excluded religious organizations and smaller nonprofits with less than $25,000 in annual income that are not required to file with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Survey data were supplemented with information from the NCCS Private Charities Core data file (2014).

The survey was pre-tested using cognitive interviews with a small sample of Boston-area nonprofits; the survey was revised and then administered statewide from fall 2014 to spring 2015. An initial email introducing the purpose of the survey included the embedded survey link. Subsequent automated email reminders were sent (also with embedded survey links) to encourage participation. In addition, a robocall was broadcast to the survey sample. This brief, pre-recorded call reminded nonprofit managers about the survey and urged their participation. Finally, to incentivize completion, survey respondents were entered into a raffle for a chance to win a $250 American Express gift card.

A comparison of the Massachusetts nonprofit population, the survey sample, respondents, and non-respondents provides some insight into the representativeness of the sample. The distribution of nonprofit mission areas in the sample mirrors that in the larger population, with human services comprising the largest category. There is also no statistically significant difference in the proximity of nonprofits to the greater Boston area in the sample versus the population. However, the survey sample included larger organizations, on average, when compared to the population. Likewise, survey respondents were generally larger (measured by revenues) than non-respondents in the survey.

Nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations were identified by their response to the question: “Please indicate the groups that your organization aims to serve through its programs and activities.” Responses coded as serving disadvantaged populations included: disabled/special needs, LBGT, immigrants or refugees, racial or ethnic minority groups, and unemployed. Additional responses in an open-ended answer included: unhoused, economically disadvantaged, low-income, and disadvantaged children. Respondents could select more than one population from the list. Nonprofits that selected at least one of these groups, just under half of the sample (46 %), were coded as serving disadvantaged populations.

5.2 Analytical Approach

Our three research questions require different analytical approaches. In what follows, we reintroduce each of our research questions and describe the analyses utilized to answer those questions. Our first question asks: What advocacy tactics are most utilized by nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations? To answer this question, we conduct an analysis of variance comparing the percentage of nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations using different advocacy tactics to the percentage of other nonprofits using those same tactics. To measure advocacy tactics, the survey provided a list of eleven advocacy tactics and asked respondents to select the activities they had used in the last year. Organizations that had used the tactic in the past year are coded 1, and those that did not are coded 0. Table 1 shows the analysis of variance conducted to identify the advocacy tactics used most frequently by organizations serving disadvantaged populations.

Next, we turn to our second research question: What combinations of advocacy tactics – tactical repertoires – are most utilized by nonprofit organizations serving disadvantaged populations? To answer this question, we conduct a cluster analysis on the same set of advocacy tactics. In this way, we move beyond considerations of individual tactics to identify tactical repertoires – combinations of advocacy tactics – that nonprofits use. To discern whether certain advocacy tactics group together into a tactical repertoire, we conduct a k-means cluster analysis (Table 2, Panel A). A three-cluster solution emerged. This solution was confirmed by a silhouette score of 0.52 (Kodinariya and Makwana 2013). The silhouette score indicates how similar an object is to its own cluster compared to other clusters. The silhouette ranges from −1 to +1. A clustering with an average silhouette value over 0.5 is considered “reasonable.” Table 2, Panel A, shows how specific tactics array across repertoires. Table 2, Panel B, demonstrates the profile of organizations that utilize each tactical repertoire. Table 3 shows the frequency of individual tactics across tactical repertoires.

Table 2:

Descriptives for tactical repertoires (N = 497).

1. ^aBoxes in Panel A identify tactics used by more than 50 % of the cluster.

Table 3:

Mean frequency of tactics by tactical repertoire (N = 497).

1. ^aBoxes identify tactics used by more than 50 % of the cluster.

Our final research question is: Given variation in tactical repertoires, which combinations of tactics are perceived as most effective? We use regression analysis to examine how tactical repertoires and other factors are associated with perceptions of advocacy effectiveness.

5.2.2 Independent Variables

5.2.2.1 Tactical Repertoires

To investigate the relationship between tactical repertoires and perceived effectiveness, we examine the following:

Tactical repertoires. This variable captures the three clusters identified above that describe different combinations of advocacy tactics.

Size of tactical repertoire. We measure the size of a tactical repertoire as a count of 11 advocacy tactics reported by a nonprofit.

Client participation in tactics. This variable captures responses to the question, “Who participates in lobbying or policy advocacy in your organization?” Respondents were instructed to check all from a list that included “clients/constituents.”

5.2.2.2 Organizational and Environmental Controls

We also included variables capturing various organizational attributes, including organizational size and age, human service mission (the largest mission category in the data), and organizational capacity. In addition, we included controls for reliance on government funding and perceived friendliness of the local and state policy environment. See Table 4 for descriptive statistics on the variables included in the regression analysis. See Table 5 for variable correlations.

Table 4:

Descriptives.

Dependent variable	Variable measurementa	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Scale of policy advocacy effectiveness	Scale of 6 policy outcomesb	2.24	2.19	0	6
Independent variables
Organizational and environmental controls
Organizational size	Organizational revenues (natural log) in 2014c	8.60	4.92	0	21
Organizational age	Age in 2014 calculated using IRS rule dated	26.88	18.81	2	92
Human service mission	Human service mission per the NTEEd	0.36	0.48	0	1
Organizational capacity	Additive scale measuring organizational capacitye	7.37	1.62	0	9
Percent government funding	Percentage of government funding	28.58	32.11	0	99
Favorable policy environment	Challenging local and state policy environment	0.65	0.83	0	2
Tactical repertoires
Tactical repertoire
Meet and Greet repertoire		0.68	0.47	0	1
Proficient repertoire		0.24	0.43	0	1
Expert repertoire		0.08	0.43	0	1
Size of tactical repertoire	Count of advocacy tactics	4.80	2.81	0	11
Client participation in tactics	Client/constituents participate in advocacy	0.26	0.44	0	1

1. ^aUnless otherwise noted, data source is Massachusetts Nonprofit Advocacy Survey (2014–15). ^bCronbach’s alpha for advocacy effectiveness scale: 0.86. Additive scale. ^cData source: National Center for Charitable Statistics, Core Private Charities File, 2014. ^dThe National Taxonomy for Exempt Entities is the national standard for classifying nonprofits by their primary activity. ^eCronbach’s alpha for organizational capacity scale: 0.72. Additive scale (0–9) indicating presence of computerized financial records; computerized client/program records; written conflict of interest policy; written fundraising plan; annual report; evaluation of program outcomes; audited financial statement; dedicated office space; and a social networking presence.

Table 5:

Correlations.

1. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

6.1 Advocacy Tactics

First, we considered how the tactics of nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations compare to other nonprofits. As shown in Table 1, we examined how nonprofits employed 11 tactics drawn from previous nonprofit advocacy research. Four tactics stand out as being utilized by more than 50 percent of all nonprofits. These are a mix of outsider and insider tactics including: inviting an elected official to a program or event, meeting with elected officials to discuss legislation, calling or writing a government official about a policy matter, and using technology to educate the public or nonprofit constituents about a policy matter.

Table 1 provides the results from an analysis of variance comparing tactics used by a subsample of nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations compared to other nonprofits that do not. We find that nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations use both insider and outsider tactics and utilize all advocacy tactics at higher rates than other nonprofits. Interestingly, a mix of both insider and outsider tactics (seven altogether) are statically significant, with higher rates of use by nonprofits that serve disadvantaged populations. The top two tactics employed by these nonprofits are: inviting an elected official to a program or event (90 %) and calling or writing a government official about a policy matter (74 %). It is notable that most nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations engage in at least one form of lobbying. For example, 71 percent of nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations met with elected officials to discuss legislation. Hypothesis 1 is partially supported. We expected advocacy tactics used by nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations to be different than those of other nonprofits, however, we found they use similar tactics as other nonprofits but use them at higher rates.

6.2 Tactical Repertoires

To move beyond dyadic considerations of whether a nonprofit utilizes an advocacy tactic (or not) we conducted a cluster analysis of tactics to understand if they tend to group together. These tactical repertoires describe groups of tactics which nonprofits use in concert when pursuing their advocacy objectives. As shown in Table 2 (Panel A) a three-cluster solution emerged. We call the first tactical repertoire the Meet and Greet repertoire because the dominant tactic in this cluster is inviting an elected official to a nonprofit program or event. The Meet and Greet repertoire described 68 % of nonprofits in the sample (Table 2, Panel A) and 66 % of nonprofits that serve disadvantaged populations (Table 2, Panel B). These nonprofits use the tactics we investigated at lower rates than other nonprofits. The tactics in this repertoire also require the least resources (e.g. using technology like social media or email to inform people about policies).

We call the next tactical repertoire Proficient because it involves a greater number of tactics than the Meet and Greet repertoire and arguably requires more resources and skilled knowledge. For example, almost 90 % of nonprofits characterized as Proficient met with an elected official to discuss legislation. Fifty-six percent of this repertoire also worked to mobilize the public to support or oppose specific legislation, compared with only 21 % of the Meet and Greet cluster. The Proficient repertoire characterizes 24 % of nonprofits in the sample (Table 2, Panel A) and 26 % of nonprofits that serve disadvantaged populations (Table 2, Panel B). The final tactical repertoire, the Expert cluster, includes the greatest number of tactics and requires the most resources and expertise. For example, 90 % of Expert nonprofits assisted in drafting legislation, 95 % provided expert testimony at committee hearings, and almost 90 % helped to develop government regulations. Sixty-seven percent of Expert nonprofits also released a research report that requires resources for data collection and analysis.

Table 2 (Panel B) describes how nonprofits utilizing these tactical repertoires differ. The repertoires describe increasing levels of advocacy involvement, advocacy capacity, and expertise. The number of advocacy tactics, perceptions of policy effectiveness, and engagement of clients in advocacy increase as one moves from the Meet and Greet cluster to the Experts. Interestingly, most nonprofits (Meet and Greet) evidence a small tactical repertoire characterized primarily by inviting an elected official to a program or event. The Proficient repertoire, used by most nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations, includes organizations that rely more on government funding than in other repertoires. The Expert repertoire is characterized by resource allocation to lobbying, with almost 60 % of this cluster having staff members who are lobbyists, and 43 % that employ external lobbyists. Hypothesis 2 is supported: advocacy tactics cluster into a set of tactical repertoires that vary by organizational characteristics. While we find evidence of tactical repertoires, it remains to be seen how these are associated with perceptions of policy effectiveness.

Table 3 shows how the frequency of specific tactics varies across the tactical repertoires. Not only does the specific mix of tactics vary across the repertoires, but the degree of engagement in them does as well. In all cases, tactics are more frequently used as one moves from the Meet and Greet, to the Proficient, and then to the Expert repertoires.

6.3 Perceived Advocacy Effectiveness

7.1 Tactical Repertoires in Nonprofit Advocacy

To our knowledge, this is the first time that advocacy tactics have been inductively studied as repertoires rather than given a priori meaning (e.g. the most widely used categorization of which is insider/outsider). Previous research has focused on nonprofits’ use and preference for specific advocacy tactics (Buffardi, Pekkanen, and Smith 2017; Mosley 2011). Our study builds on this work, seeking to understand how specific tactics are used in concert as tactical repertoires. Upon clustering advocacy tactics into tactical repertoires based on nonprofit co-occurrence, we find three dominant tactical repertoires all of which include a combination of insider and outsider strategies (Table 1, Panel A). Nonprofits across all repertoires do not focus exclusively on insider or outsider tactics; rather, they pursue a blend of approaches: mobilizing resources outside the formal political process and applying expertise to work within the political system. Some previous research found that insider tactics may be more prevalent or effective in achieving policy change (Hoefer 2005; Mosley 2011; Onyx et al. 2010; Rees 1999). Other research suggests that the combination of insider and outsider may be most effective (Zhang and Guo 2020). We find that the combination of insider and outsider tactics, which characterize the Proficient repertoire, are perceived to be the most effective. Related research suggests that nonprofits might sequence their advocacy work, pursuing more disruptive outsider tactics only after building relationships via insider tactics (Almog-Bar and Schmid 2014), but our results suggest that both insider and outsider tactics are frequently used at the same time.

The distinctiveness of the three repertoires is reinforced through the examination of other information in the data (Table 2, Panel B). Greater engagement across the tactical repertoires is evident through the increasing size of the tactical repertoire (number of tactics), more than doubling between nonprofits in the Meet and Greet and Expert repertoires. Greater expertise is also demonstrated by increasing numbers of internal and external lobbyists used by nonprofits across the tactical repertoires. Not only does expertise increase across the repertoires, but the frequency of participation in tactics increases as well (Table 3). Interestingly, without holding other factors constant, the repertoires are also associated with an increasing perception of advocacy effectiveness. Nonprofits using the Proficient repertoire perceive their effectiveness to be more than twice that of the Meet and Greet nonprofits.

7.2 Perceived Nonprofit Advocacy Effectiveness

To date, little research has examined the efficacy of nonprofit advocacy (Ward et al. 2023). Advocacy success is important for many reasons, not the least of which is the ability to garner greater resources for a nonprofit’s mission. In addition to resources, advocacy can impact both outcomes and processes of public policy, securing more favorable legislation and regulations for nonprofits and the sector. Our analysis identifies a variety of factors that nonprofit serving disadvantaged populations perceive as contributing to their level of advocacy success.

In our study, nonprofits drawing on the Expert tactical repertoire were the most engaged in advocacy as indicated by the size of their tactical repertoire and frequency of their engagement. However, the Proficient tactical repertoire was perceived as the most effective combination of tactics (Table 6) when other factors are held constant. It is interesting that the Proficient repertoire is associated with the perception of more effective advocacy (compared to the Meet and Greet repertoire), especially considering that the Expert repertoire includes the same strategies, supplemented by more tactics. The additional tactics in the Expert repertoire (helping with developing government regulations, drafting legislation, and releasing a research report) are used at lower rates than other tactics in the repertoire (Table 3) and might be less effective in achieving advocacy success than other tactics. Nonprofits that employ the Expert repertoire might have more realistic expectations of their advocacy success, with expectations tempered by their greater understanding of – and participation in – the policy process. Alternatively, Expert organizations could have higher standards for success, engaging as they do in more insider tactics. They could, therefore, be less likely to report successful advocacy. Although the Meet and Greet repertoire, characterizing 68 % of nonprofits, was perceived as the least effective repertoire, organizations drawing on this repertoire still achieved an average of 1.5 positive advocacy outcomes during the year (see Table 3).

The size of tactical repertoires and the organizational actors who participate in them also matter to perceived advocacy effectiveness. The number of advocacy tactics a nonprofit used was associated with the perception of greater advocacy effectiveness (see Table 6). Previous research finds that larger tactical repertoires associated with insider tactics (Mosley 2011) are important to effective advocacy. Client participation in advocacy was also significant and positively associated with the perception of advocacy success. Increasingly, nonprofit research has considered the issue of representation and nonprofit advocacy, typically examining characteristics of nonprofit boards and leaders (Guo and Zhang 2013; Kim and Mason 2018; LeRoux 2009). In Guo and Saxton’s (2010) study of the effect of descriptive and participatory representation on nonprofit advocacy, they found constituent involvement in decision-making is positively related to the level of advocacy engagement. Our study contributes to this literature by examining whether client participation in advocacy tactics matters for perceived effectiveness and we find that it does.

7.3 Nonprofit Advocacy Among Nonprofits Serving Disadvantaged Populations

Studying how nonprofits serving disadvantaged groups use advocacy, and how they perceive success, is important because these organizations can represent disenfranchised and marginalized groups in the democratic process. Our findings show that nonprofits serving disadvantaged groups are engaging in a wide array of advocacy tactics at higher rates than other types of organizations. The analysis of tactical repertoires shows that the distribution of nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations across repertoires tracks that of other nonprofits.

Most nonprofits serving disadvantaged groups are described by the Meet and Greet repertoire. These nonprofits invite elected officials to their programs or contact them about policy matters about once a year. A little over a quarter of nonprofits serving disadvantaged groups are using a Proficient tactical repertoire, which our findings suggest is perceived as the most effective set of tactics. These nonprofits have a larger tactical repertoire, greater reliance on government funding, and over twice the participation of clients in advocacy than do the Meet and Greet nonprofits. In addition, they are almost seven times more likely to have a staff member who is a lobbyist. Finally, some nonprofits (7.6 %) that serve disadvantaged populations are characterized by the Expert tactical repertoire (Table 2, Panel B). These nonprofits use the greatest number of tactics at the greatest frequency. Interestingly, this repertoire has a higher perception of effectiveness but is not distinguishable from the Meet and Greet repertoire in our regression analysis (Table 6). Our findings suggest how nonprofits serving disadvantaged populations might boost the perceived effectiveness of some organizations, which could have beneficial impacts on their beneficiaries. Our analysis suggests that several aspects of tactical repertoires, including the size and who participates, impact the perception of advocacy effectiveness. Nonprofits could use more tactics and involve their clients in advocacy.

This discussion of our findings would not be complete without a recognition of the study’s limitations. First, this research is based on a sample of nonprofits in Massachusetts. While much research on the nonprofit sector is grounded in analyses of specific geographical regions (Grønbjerg 2001; Joassart-Marcelli and Wolch 2003), our study’s findings should be generalized with care to other regions. Second, this is a study of nonprofit managers’ reports of using advocacy tactics and perceptions of effective advocacy outcomes. Like other analyses of advocacy effectiveness (Bell, Fryar, and Johnson 2020; Zhang and Guo 2020), and nonprofit research generally, our analysis of advocacy outcomes is based on the perceptions of survey respondents. Nonprofit executives’ evaluations of advocacy success are important because they form the basis for organizational decisions and actions. Indeed, scholars have called for research on how nonprofit leaders evaluate the success of advocacy (Clear, Paull, and Holloway 2018). Future research might investigate the passage of specific legislation and receipt of specific funding. Finally, our survey instrument asked about engagement in a specific group of tactics. While informed by previous research, it may be the case that nonprofit respondents engage in tactics that were not included in the survey. Our findings should be interpreted with these limitations in mind.