Developing a Progressive AdvocacyProgram Within a HumanS

Developing a Progressive Advocacy
Program Within a Human
Services Agency
Linda Plitt Donaldson, PhD
ABSTRACT. This paper brings together knowledge from
research and
practice to suggest a set of building blocks on which a
progressive advo-
cacy program could be developed within a human services
agency. Pro-
gressive advocacy is defined as advocacy motivated primarily
by a desire
for social change that addresses underlying structural and power
inequi-
ties that includes methods to meaningfully engage agency
clients or con-
stituents in all aspects ofthe advocacy process. The paper
concludes with
a case study showing the development of an advocacy program
within a
nonprofit homeless services agency and discusses the
constraints on its
development. Implications for research, education, and practice
are also
discussed. doi:10.1300/J147v32n02_03 [Article copies available
for a fee from
The Haworth Document Delivery Service: l-800-HAWORTH. E-
mail address:
<[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>

© 2008 by the Haworth Press. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Advocacy, nonprofit, human services, leadership,
em-
powerment, social change
INTRODUCTION
Since the emergence of the charity organization societies in the
late
1800s, nonprofit human service agencies have been the
cornerstone of
the U.S. response to community needs. The common image of
nonprofit
Linda Plitt Donaldson is Assistant Professor, Catholic
University of America,
National Catholic School of Social Service, 620 Michigan
Avenue, NE, Washington,
DC 20064.
Administration in Social Work, Vol. 32(2) 2008
Available online at http://asw.haworthpress.com
© 2008 by The Haworth Press. Ail rights reserved.
doi:l0.1300/J147v32n02_03 25
26 ADMINISTRA TION ¡N SOCIAL WORK
human service agencies as providers of shelter, food, clothing,
and other
forms of treatment for the symptoms of intractable social
problems over-
shadows their important history as social change agents. For

example, the
poverty movement, battered women's movement, and gay rights
move-
ment were enabled by the participation of nonprofit agencies
that served
the needs of those groups. This skewed view of nonprofits as
purveyors
of charity but not justice may lead important agency
stakeholders like do-
nors. Boards, Executive Directors, and staff, to the conclusion
that ad-
vocacy practice is neither worthwhile nor appropriate as a core
function
for human service agencies.
The purpose of this paper is to stimulate a greater understanding
of
the role and purpose of advocacy as a distinct program within a
human
service agency and to lay out a framework for developing one.
Advo-
cacy is defined as "any attempt to influence the decisions of any
institu-
tional elite on behalf of a collective interest" (Jenkins, 1987, p.
197). The
term progressive advocacy practice refers to advocacy that (1)
seeks to
address underlying structural and power inequities as distinct
from ad-
vocacy motivated by organizational interest, and (2) applies
strategies
that meaningfully engage clients or constituents in all aspects of
the ad-
vocacy process.
The paper begins by attempting to deepen the rationale for

nonprofit
human service agency advocacy practice by framing it in the
context of
a public policy making theory. After framing the context, the
paper of-
fers a set of core practice principles and building blocks for
developing
a progressive advocacy program within a human services agency
fol-
lowed by a case study illustiating the development of an
advocacy pro-
gram within a nonprofit multi-service agency serving people
who are
homeless. Although the agency does not achieve the ideal
progressive
advocacy model, its constraints demonstrate the challenges
embedded
in developing such a program. The paper concludes with a
discussion of
the implications for social work research, education, and
practice.
RATIONALE FOR ADVOCACY PRACTICE
WITHIN A HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
Because of the front line nature of social work practice in
nonprofit
settings, the social work profession has a powerful opportunity
to assist
nonprofit human services agencies integrate progressive
advocacy func-
tions into their work. The profession's ethical obligation
(NASW, 1996) to

Linda Plitt Donaldson 27
engage in advocacy practice arises from the fact that the
populations
they serve are disproportionately reliant on government-funded
social
services. Furthermore, the degree to which these services do not
meet
sufficient measures of equity and adequacy have grave
consequences
for the quality of life of families and individuals in need. In
addition,
given their direct experience with addressing human needs,
social ser-
vice agencies have a unique perspective to speak authoritatively
about
the root causes of social problems, and they have access to the
true ex-
perts on the solutions to social problems, their clients, or as
they are re-
ferred to in this paper, their constituents.
Trends in public policy making and social service delivery
support
the need for nonprofit human service agencies to leverage the
knowl-
edge and expertise of their constituents and staff to advocate for
social
justice. The devolutionary trend of public policy making from
federal to
state and local governments may make the policy-making
process more
accessible to community-based agencies as local decision-
makers are
physically located closer to them as compared to federal policy
decision-

makers. However, devolving policy making to local
governments typi-
cally goes hand-in-hand with budget cuts or block grants which
freeze
funding levels and therefore require states and nonprofit
agencies to do
more with less during recessions, natural disasters, or other
catastrophic
events that may cause an increase in the demand for social
services and
support. Furthermore, in an environment of scarce and
diminishing re-
sources (exacerbated by the War in Iraq and the reconstruction
of the
Gulf Coast), advocates for safety net programs often compete
with each
other for funding, and also compete with other interests with
greater
power, privilege, and resources. Consequently, social workers
must work
even harder to unify and mobilize themselves and their
constituents to
advance more equitable systems without being pitted against
each other.
Finally, the privatization and commercialization of social
services add
greater complexity to the policy advocacy process in two ways.
First,
agencies advocating to change policies of the implementing
agency
may be challenging peer agencies and thereby straining pre-
existing
inter-agency relationships. Second, privatization may add an
extra level
of bureaucracy to the policy advocacy process, as advocates
may need

to first meet with third-party contractor decision-makers prior
to gov-
ernment decision-makers in the process of achieving a desired
reform.
Despite these compelling reasons, it is unclear how many human
service agencies actually engage in advocacy activities. In
1998,
only 1.5% of public charities reported lobbying expenses (Boris
&
Krehely, 2002), but lobbying is just one among many types of
activities
28 ADMINISTRA TION IN SOCIAL WORK
included in advocacy practice. Advocacy also includes tasks
such as,
educating, skill-^building, mobilizing, organizing, researching,
analyzing,
letter-writing, protesting, petitioning, awakening power,
building relation-
ships, convening, facilitating, etc., and most of these tasks
never cross the
line to the legal definition of lobbying or grassroots lobbying
(Avner,
2004; Alliance for Justice, 2004), therefore, nonprofit agencies
have a lot
of opportunity to advance a social change agenda without
engaging in
lobbying. •
Another unresolved question in the literature that examines
nonprofit
advocacy is the extent to which agency advocacy behavior is

motivated
by self or agency-interest, for example, to protect funding
sources, or do
agencies have a broader purpose to their advocacy agenda that
includes
addressing structural and power inequities. The answer to these
questions
is usually not an either/or, and advocacy can certainly be done
to serve
both purposes. However, the answer to these questions might
influence
the strategies and tactics agencies use in their advocacy
practice, that is,
whether or not the agency engages in progressive advocacy, or
advocacy
that is mostly expert-driven and motivated primarily by agency-
interest.
The Policy Cycle as Rationale
for Institutionalized Advocacy Practice
Human services advocacy practice has been described as a
peripheral
function typically characterized as "ad hoc" and " i n e p t . . .
lacking con-
tinuity and coherence" (Gibelman & Kraft, 1996, p. 49).
Howlett and
Ramesh (2003) present a five-stage model of the policy cycle
that includes:
(1) agenda-setting; (2) policy formulation; (3) policy decision-
making;
(4) policy implementation; and (5) policy evaluation.
Understanding the
tedious and complex nature of these five stages gives insight on
why ad
hoc approaches to advocacy simply will not make the systemic

changes
necessary for reforrn, and therefore provides some rationale for
struc-
turing a human services advocacy program with dedicated staff
and
resources.
For example, Kingdon (1995) and Jansson (2003) describe an
agenda-
setting process where three "streams" converge and push a
policy idea
through a window of opportunity, placing it on a shortlist for
policy
consideration. These streams include:
• a problem stream, where social issues come to the
consciousness
of policy makers through agitation by a constituent or
constituency
group, or by an event that focuses the nation's or a jurisdiction's
attention on a social concern. For example, Hurricane Katrina
has
focused the attention of the nation on the intersection of race,
class,
and poverty in a way that hasn't entered the consciousness of
the
dominant culture since the 1960s;
• a political stream, where the sentiment of the general public,
or
change in political actors through the election cycles generate a

shift in values and/or priorities that might support a particular
pol-
icy position;
• a policy stream, in which policy experts generate a series of
feasi-
ble options to address a recognized public problem.
In an effort to facilitate the flow of complementary issues and
policy
options down their respective streams, Kingdon (1995)
describes the
"policy entrepreneur" (p. 179) who is an important actor, or set
of actors
working together, to put an issue into the public consciousness,
often
through a media strategy, to shape or bend public opinion
toward their
view of the social problem and potential solutions. In addition,
policy
entrepreneurs should also be working with policy actors at think
tanks,
universities, government administrations, and within their own
coali-
tions to develop one or more policy solutions that are
technically feasi-
ble and that anticipate and respond to constraints that may be
raised by
policy decision-makers. Consequently, a policy entrepreneur's
job is to
facilitate the development of: problems into public issues;
policy ideas
into feasible policy solutions; and a fractured political climate
into one
that is disposed to one's policy position. All of these
simultaneous ef-

forts require an enormous amount of relationship-building with
many
and varied actors within and on the fringes of the public making
policy
process to get an issue on the short list of policy decision-
makers.
Furthermore, after getting the issue on the short list for
consideration,
the policy entrepreneur's work continues in the political stream.
For ex-
ample, in the case of legislation, the policy entrepreneur must
continue
to work the various in and out-flows in the legislative process
to ensure
that support for the bill'grows, that House and Senate
committees schedule
hearings for and votes on the bill, that it gets reported out of
committee, and
gets scheduled for a floor debate. While the bill is moving
through the
legislative branch, the policy entrepreneur needs to ensure that
it will
not get vetoed when and if it gets to the President or the
Governor. Be-
fore and once a bill is passed and signed, the policy
entrepreneur must
work with the administrative branch and the bill supporters to
ensure
that regulations are properly written, implemented, and enforced
while
monitoring unintended and potentially damaging consequences.
Even if

the law is implemented successfully, policy entrepreneurs and
their al-
lies must continue to ensure that programs created from the law
are
given proper funding and support each year.
These policy cycle activities do not even include the important
tasks of
constituent organizing or reflection activities that are integral to
progres-
sive advocacy practice. Therefore, this greater understanding of
what's
involved in policy change may give evidence to the need for
agencies to
invest in full-time staff and resources to support advocacy
practice. If
such agency activities are continued as an add-on responsibility
of Ex-
ecutive Directors or Development Directors advocacy will
continue to
result in ad hoc, reactive approaches which often serve to
maintain ex-
isting systems that perpetuate human suffering.
CORE PRACTICE PRINCIPLES
FOR DEVELOPING AN AD VOCACY PROGRAM
No single framework exists for institutionalizing a progressive
advo-
cacy program within a human services agency. Developing such
a pro-
gram depends on a variety of internal and external factors,
including:
the organization's lifecycle stage; the values and philosophies of

agency
stakeholders (board, staff, volunteer, community, constituents);
organi-
zational structure; agency mission; and the agency's external
political
and economic contexts. Therefore, different strategies will be
required
for moving an agency along the continuum from social service
to pro-
gressive advocacy practice based on those factors. For example,
the de-
velopmental issues described by Stevens (2001) in her seven-
stage
nonprofit hfecycle model is a useful tool for managers and
capacity-
builders to consider, in relation to other contextual factors,
when integrat-
ing and deepening building blocks for a progressive advocacy
program.
Similarly, different models of integrating social service and
social change
functions will also emerge. For example, social service agencies
may
wish to partner with a grassroots community organizing project
to en-
gage and mobilize their constituents rather than build internal
capacity
for organizing. However, some universal core practice
principles for de-
veloping a progressive advocacy program are:
• Start Where the Agency Is: In direct social work practice,
clinicians
stress the principle of "starting where the client is" (Hepworth,
Rooney, & Larsen, 2002, p. 49), based on research showing that

client readiness for change is an important consideration in the
helping process. This same principle holds true in efforts to
engage
organizations in change, particularly when introducing
programs
that seek social change which may challenge stakeholder
percep-
tions of the mission and puipose of human service agencies and
expose real or perceived vulnerabilities to funders.
A starting point for many human service agencies consider-
ing advocacy as a core function is one of providing direct
services
only, such as emergency services or mental health services. To
be-
gin moving further along the continuum toward a social service
agency with fully-integrated progressive advocacy program, one
must do a thorough assessment of the organization's readiness
for
change and develop a strategy according to a particular change
model. Appendix lists some characteristics of an ideal human
ser-
vices agency with a fully integrated progressive advocacy
program.
However, the view of what is ideal is subjective and that ideal
end-
point is part of the agency assessment process.
Leverage Knowledge and Expertise of Service Program Staff:
Good
advocacy is grounded in agency service and constituent experi-
ences. Therefore, it is incumbent on the advocacy staff to
ensure

that their advocacy is being done in support of and in
coordination
with the service programs by communicating regularly with ser-
vice staff through meetings or e-mail to share information and
to
engage them in advocacy activities.
Leverage the Knowledge and Expertise of Constituents: The
great-
est social change resource of any human service agency is its
constituents. Most agency constituents know more about social
prob-
lems than people with formal education but no experience living
with those issues. In addition, agency constituents also have
ideas
for solutions that are grounded in real community and life
experi-
ence and therefore have more meaning and practical appli cation.
Work in Coalitions: In addition to being a building block for
devel-
oping an advocacy program, working in coalitions is an
important
principle to consider when developing an advocacy program.
Join-
ing a coalition is often a first step to agency engagement in
advo-
cacy. Agency leadership beginning to explore integrating
advocacy
as a core function often think of attending a monthly coalition
meet-
ing as a low-investment toward learning the policy issues.
Only Practice Advocacy in Agency's A rea of Expertise: As
agencies
become known for their advocacy work and policy positions,
they
may be asked to speak about areas that are related to but beyond

32 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
their areas of expertise. In such cases, agencies should resist the
temptation to give visibility to their agency by responding affir -
matively to such requests. It is more important to be authentic
and
true to your area of competence and share opportunities for
visibil-
ity with complementary agencies.
These core principles form the foundation for the building
blocks
that comprise a progressive advocacy program within a human
services
agency. These building blocks are discussed in the next section.
BUILDING BLOCKS FOR DEVELOPING
AN ADVOCACY PROGRAM
WITHIN A HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
The following framework describes the building blocks for a
pro-
gressive advocacy program within a human service agency. The
build-
ing blocks do not have to be put down in the order in which
they are
depicted in Figure 1. Consequently, they are not assigned
numbers to
help convey the idea that they can be swapped out and
rearranged based
on an agency's individual context. For example, the building
blocks, as
depicted, might convey that agency leadership that is supportive

of pro-
gressive advocacy is the foundation for a strong advocacy
program. In
fact, the literature shows that agency leadership is an important
predictor
of nonprofit advocacy practice. However, some agencies may
find that
meaningful opportunities to reflect on the structural causes that
bring
people in for services form the early foundation for an agency's
pro-
gressive advocacy practice.
Moreover, the building blocks should not infer that functions
should
be done internal to the agency. For example, an agency may
want to bring
in a consultant to facilitate reflections with staff and volunteers
or part-
ner with a grassroots community organizing group to engage
constitu-
ents in social change activities. What are important are the
functions,
not whether they are done internal to agency or in partnership
with an
external agency. Finally, Figure 1 shows the building blocks in
3-D
to convey the idea that there are degrees of depth or solidity to
each
block. For example, an agency whose constituent involvement
includes
a single seat on the Board and one opportunity per year to give
input on
agency priorities might reflect a thin or fairly hollow building
block, as
compared to an agency with a fully developed community

organizing
program.
Linda Pütt Donaldson 33
FIGURE 1. Building Blocks* for Developing a Progressive
Advocacy Program
in a Human Services Agency
Regular Opportunities for Reflection
* Institutionalized Practices for Meaningful Constituent
Involvement
Active and Meaningful Participation in Coalitions
Full-Time Staff Devoted to Advocacy
Diversified Funding Portfolio
Agency Leadership Fully Supportive of Progressive ,
Alvocacy Activities
*A core practice principle in developing a progressive
advocacy program is to meet the agency where it is.
Therefore:
• Building blocks can be developed in any order,
simultaneously, and to varying degrees;
• In reality, building blocks are always evolving
and getting stronger, deeper, and more solid over
time;

• Building blocks do not have to exist internal to
the agency, e.g., agencies may partner with an
organizing project to actively and meaningfully
engage constituents in social change rather than
have a CO program internal to the agency.
Description of Building Blocks
• Advocacy Leadership Fully Supportive of Progressive
Advocacy
Activities: Leadership is a critical factor for transforming
nonprofit
social service agencies into agents of social change
(OMBWatch,
2002; Cohen, 2001; Donaldson, 2004). Gibelman and Kraft
(1996)
stated that "leadership, vision, and commitment on the part of
the
social welfare managers, etc are critical ingredients for building
the necessary foundation for effective advocacy" (p. 57).
Salamon
(1995) suggested that another factor influencing agency
advocacy
behavior is "leadership that seeks to return agencies to their
advo-
cacy roots" (p. 15). Saidel and Harlan (1998) found that
leadership
was a key factor influencing the advocacy activities of an
organi-
zation, and De Vita et al. (2004) identiñed leadership as the link
between an organization's capacity and its policy activities.

• Leadership, whether it is the Board of Directors, the Executive
Di-
rector, and/or the senior management team, needs to believe in
the
importance of advocacy, partly because it is so difficult to see
its
effects in the short term. Support from agency leadership can be
demonstrated by having advocacy functions written into the
mis-
sion statement, vision statement, and goals ofthe agency,
structur-
ing them with dedicated staff, and having a Board public policy
to
enhance and support the advocacy functions of the agency.
• Diversified Funding Portfolio: As local governments continue
to
try to reduce costs through privatization and contracting out
social
service functions, human service agencies are becoming more
reliant
' on government funding. The literature is divided on whether or
not
government funding impedes or enhances advocacy. Some
research
shows that government funding enhances advocacy (Donaldson,
2004; Kramer, 1994, 1985; Salamon, 1995; OMBWatch, 2002;
McCarthy & Castelli, 1997; Sosin, 1986; Gronbjerg, 1993).
Other
scholars find that government funding curbs agency advocacy
be-
havior (Smith & Lipsky, 1993; Wolch, 1990; Alexander, Nank,
&
Stivers, 1999; O'Connell, 1994; Wong, 1993; Reinelt, 1994;
Hudson,

1998a; Epstein, 1981). A critique of these studies is that none
teases
out the motivation for the advocacy, that is, whether it is
motivated
by self-interest (organizational survival) or to create a more
inclusive
and just society (progressive advocacy). Either way, multiple
fund-
ing sources contribute to greater agency autonomy.
• Full-Time Staff Devoted to Advocacy: The activities
associated
with the policy cycle and constituency organizing offer a strong
rationale for agencies to dedicate full-time staff to such
activities.
As mentioned above, most human service agency advocacy
activi-
ties are done as an add-on and often unwritten functions of a
pre-existing staff position, for example, the Executive Director,
a
Program Officer, or Resource Developer. When an agency's
only
advocacy activities are embedded within another position, those
activities tend to be ad hoc and unsystematic, and can be
demoraliz-
ing and overwhelming to the staff person doing them. An
agency
can be stuck in this phase for many years as it educates board
mem-
bers about the importance of advocacy, and fundraises for an
advo-

cacy position. Some agencies may even feel sufficiently
satisfied at
this level of advocacy activity. However, to move agency
advocacy
practice beyond an ad hoc stage, agencies must hire at least one
full-time person experienced in advocacy and social change
practice
and may be more, depending on various factors including the
size of
the agency, the variety of service programs offered, and the
viability
of issue coalitions, and other internal and external conditions.
Until
the philanthropic community embraces their role in funding
advocacy
and other social change actiyities, agencies will most likely
need to
fund progressive advocacy practice through their general
operat-
ing budget. Activities complementary to progressive advocacy
that
may be more palatable to grant makers are those associated with
civic engagement, leadership development, and community
devel-
opment.
Active and Meaningful Participation in Coalitions: Human
service
agencies and their constituents are competing with special
interests
with much greater financial resources and therefore easier
access to
policy decision-makers. Human service agencies can
demonstrate
power by building coalitions, which can be a terrific means for
col-
lective strategizing and advocacy practice. Coalitions have the

benefit
of pooling the resources of its members to lessen the burden on
any
one; they provide cover from potential retribution by the
advocacy
target, and also filter the avalanche of information received
through
the growing mass of media sources. Numerous studies detail the
importance of coalitions for advocacy (Kaufman, 2001; Libby &
Austin, 2002; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001 ; Nelson, 1994;
Roberts-
DeGennaro, 1997; Tefft, 1987). Mizrahi and Rosenthal (2001)
iden-
tified four key success factors for coalitions: competent
leadership,
commitment, contribution, and conditions. Consequently,
partici-
pation in coalitions should support the flourishing of these fo.ur
characteristics.
• Institutionalized Practices for Meaningful Constituent
Involvement:
More research is needed to assess the degree to which even
agen-
cies that value advocacy as a core function engage its
constituents
in those efforts. One typology of advocacy strategies
(Donaldson,
2004) categorizes them as elite, mass, or empowerment. Elite
strate-
gies are those in which agency staff visit elected officials,
partici-

pate in policy working groups, and represent agency at
coalitions.
Mass strategies involve things like petitioning, protesting,
rallying,
letter-writing, and civil disobedience. Empowerment strategies
in-
clude skill-building and educating agency constituents;
engaging
them in building agency advocacy agenda; providing
transportation
for advocacy activities, and so on. In this study of 43 human
service
agencies, even agencies that engaged in advocacy seldom used
empowerment strategies in their practice. The choice of elite
over
empowerment strategies may be rooted in a variety of pragmatic
considerations. Use of all strategies is important, but
meaningful
constituent engagement is a crucial component of progressive
ad-
vocacy practice.
• Regular Opportunities for Reflection: Reflective practice is a
term
used by multiple disciplines to describe a process where
practitioners
meet together regularly to critically examine the theories,
values,
norms, and current contexts underlying their practice and how
they
inform the practice models and techniques they use. Although
more research is needed which examines the role of reflection
in
transforming agency cultures from social service to social
change,
regular opportunities for staff, volunteers, and constituents to

re-
flect together on the structural inequities and -isms at the root
of
human needs may raise consciousness about the need for institu-
tionalized progressive advocacy practice at the agency.
MOVING FROM SOCIAL SERVICE TO SOCIAL JUSTICE:
A CASE STUDY
The road toward building on social service to affect social
change is
different for every agency depending on a variety of internal
and exter-
nal factors. This case study of how an agency developed an
advocacy
program does not end with an agency that meets the ideal, but
one that
reached its peak advocacy capacity in terms of its internal and
external
constraints and is still evolving today. Despite the constraints,
the agency
grew from one with an ad hoc advocacy program to one with an
institu-
tionalized program that included constituent involvement.
Agency Context and Birth of Advocacy Program
In 1993, Hope for the Homeless (HH)^ was a 23-year-old
community-
based homeless services agency located in an eastern urban
center with

a population of roughly 500,000 people. Between 1970 and
1993, the
agency's services expanded to address a range of needs for
people who
were homeless, including substance abuse treatment, housing,
medical
and dental services, socialization programs for the elderly, and
services
for people with mental illness. By 1993, the agency operated
more than
20 programs, employed more than 100 full-time staff, benefited
from
thousands of volunteers, and was supported by a multi-million
dollar
budget from diverse sources. In 1993, more than 80% of its
budget was
supported through private sources, including individual
donations, church
contributions, and private foundations.
In 1978, although HH is a secular organization, not associated
with
the local Catholic archdiocese, the founding Executive Director
was re-
placed by a Catholic priest with a Master's in Social Work,
years of ex-
perience running social service programs, and deeply held
values for
social justice. Moreover, he was a very savvy fund-raiser and
was able
to leverage his non-secular persona to raise money and
volunteer sup-
port. Under his leadership, the agency grew from a soup kitchen
with one
full-time staff person and two volunteers to a comprehensive,
multi-

million dollar social services agency for people who are
homeless.
In November 1993, a social worker with an advocacy/organizing
in-
terest was hired to provide direct services to residents in one of
HH's
long-term single room occupancy (SRO) housing programs. The
SRO
rents were subsidized through a local Section 8 program called
the Ten-
ant Assistance program (TAP). Within six months, the residents
began
receiving notices that the TAP program was being cut, so rent
subsidies
would no longer be available, and consequently all 93 residents
of the
program were at risk of returning to homelessness. The story of
how the
residents organized and successfully saved the TAP program is
docu-
mented elsewhere (Donaldson, 2004). However, an outcome
ofthe Save
TAP campaign was the formation of a grassroots organizing
group called
Citizens About Real Empowerment. Through the rest of her
employ-
ment in the SRO, the social worker met weekly with CARE, and
with the
help of HH's legislative aide, conducted a series of political
education
workshops. Following the political education workshops, CARE
took

on several other grassroots organizing activities, including
establishing
an orange hat patrol, saving a bus line, and testifying on
numerous other
issues associated with homelessness and poverty. The formation
of
,CARE was one way in which HH institutionalized constituent
involve-
ment in advocacy.
In the summer of 1995, the SRO social worker moved into the
legis-
lative aid position and negotiated new responsibilities for the
position
that were solely related to advocacy practice, and the position
was re-ti-
tled. Advocacy Coordinator (AC). The Executive Director fully
sup-
ported more sustained advocacy efforts and gave the AC a great
deal of
autonomy in selecting the issues in which the agency would
engage.
Furthermore, he supported her continued work with CARE.
Conse-
quently, the advocacy program at HH was born out of the
confluence of
four key factors:
1. Agency leadership (embodied in the ED) valuing and
supporting
the role of advocacy as a core function;
2. An experienced and passionate staff person dedicated full -
time to

advocacy and empowerment practice;
3. A growing rate of homelessness and undeniable needs that
required
systemic change only affected through advocacy and
organizing;
4. Documentation of need through the service experiences of the
agency enabling the AC to leverage the knowledge, expertise,
and
statistics of the various agency programs to support advocacy
ar-
guments.
Elynn (1992) writes that "advocacy capability must be
developed over
time," and leadership that valued advocacy and investment in a
full-
time position were essential to the birth ofthe advocacy
program. How-
ever, the AC had a lot to do to begin growing the program, and
her steps
in growing the capacity of the program are detailed below.
Developing the Advocaey Program
Developing organizational capacity can include hiring staff,
raising
money, finding volunteers, buying technology, organizing
constituents,
and developing knowledge and skills. The initial focus of
developing
the advocacy program centered around gaining knowledge about
the
political landscape to better understand the key elected and
appointed

city officials, and the personalities in and history ofthe key
stakeholder
groups engaged in advocacy around homelessness and poverty.
To gain
this knowledge, the AC engaged in a series of activities over the
first 3-6
months.
• Surveyed Political Landscape
o Met with seasoned advocates who had years of experience
engag-
ing elected and appointed leaders and working in coalitions.
These advocates educated her about the personalities and idio-
syncrasies of the key players. Knowing more about the
personali-
ties of elected and appointed officials was very important in
tailoring advocacy messages; understanding the formal and
infor-
mal communications channels associated with particular offices
or positions; coordinating the right composition of an advocacy
team for office visits, and so on. In addition, their knowledge of
coalition politics was helpful to avoid getting caught in political
confiicts rooted in coalition history and personality differences.
° Met with all Council members and/or their human services
legis-
lative aides, and some Executive agency staff. The primary and
stated purpose of these meetings was to reintroduce key
political
actors to HH and its new advocacy staff person. The secondary

and unstated purpose of these meetings was to build
relationships
and to gain first-hand experience with the government officials
working with issues of homelessness and poverty.
o Regularly Attended and Became Active in Key Coalition
Meet-
ings. The AC immediately began to attend key coalition meet-
ings, and was careful to mostly listen to ideas and initiatives to
get a sense of the coalition dynamics. In the end, tasks support-
ing the agenda of the key coalitions became the focus of much
of
the work of the AC, particularly as they converged with the
priori-
ties of CARE and the work of the agency.
• Surveyed Media Landscape. The AC began to pay careful
attention
to stories and editorials related to homelessness and poverty
that ap-
peared in the primary print media. She created a filing system to
clip
and save relevant news articles, and stored in her rolodex the
names
and contact information of various reporters who covered home-
lessness and poverty issues. These contacts were useful when
trying
to engage media in coalition or agency-planned actions.
• The AC also planned to listen (and sometimes call in) to a
weekly
local radio show specifically geared toward local politics where
de-
cision-makers were often guests and they or their staff were
known
to be part of the listening audience. Coalition partners were

useful
in monitoring numerous media outlets, including community
and
ethnic newspapers, and local TV news stations.
• Negotiated Investment in Technology. In 1995, Internet and e-
mail
• capacity was limited to one or two staff people who needed
this
technology to transfer funds or do fund-raising. Arguing that e-
mail
and Internet access would increase productivity and
effectiveness of
advocacy efforts, the AC was able to secure the installation of a
line
to her computer and split the cost of her personal e-mail account
with the agency to use it for advocacy activities. A few years
later,
the agency invested in this technology for the entire agency.
Modest Expansion of the Advocacy Program
The above activities describe the initial steps taken as HH's
advocacy
program emerged. In 1998, the AC assumed additional
responsibilities
related to direct services, but was able to negotiate hiring
another full-
time staff person in the Advocacy Department to work with
CARE and

expand coverage on issues. In August 2000, the Advocacy
Department
started a social justice program to conduct facilitated exchanges
with
agency volunteers who served meals in the dining room. The
objective
of the Social Justice Program was to help volunteers reflect on
the struc-
tural inequities at the core of the condition of the homelessness
they
witnessed in the dining room. The Social Justice Coordinator
(SJC) de-
veloped a series of reflections around various topics related to
homeless
and the agency experience. The advocacy staff hoped that
volunteers
could be mobilized to support the social change activities of the
Advo-
cacy Department, but these hopes did not materialize for a
variety of
reasons discussed later in the paper. In addition to engaging
dining room
volunteers in reflections, the SJC conducted educational
workshops out-
side the agency and with new staff as part of their employee
orientation.
The social worker who developed HH's advocacy program left
the
agency in August 2003, but the department continued to be led
by a
committed and competent social worker. In a subsequent
strategic plan-
ning process, advocacy emerged as a top priority for agency
investment
and support. The growth of the advocacy department at HH is a

testament
to the agency's commitment to supporting advocacy as a core
agency
function. By 2003, the staff included 2.5 full-time staff,
including one
person working part-time with CARE. This staff enabled the
active in-
volvement and often leadership in a number of coalitions across
the city
and facilitated the work of CARE to effect change in local
housing
authority policies. In addition, the SJC was able to conduct
hundreds of
facilitated reflections with volunteer and community groups on
issues of
poverty and homelessness. The positive evaluations from those
work-
shops demonstrated that they provoked critical thinking on the
issues
among the participants, although the long-term and
transformative out-
comes of those reflection opportunities are not known. In spite
of the
overall success of the department, advocacy practice had not yet
reached
an ideal model, and some of the limitations in achieving that
ideal are
described below.
LIMITATIONS ON ACHIEVING
PROGRESSIVE ADVOCACY PROGRAM

The case study shows how a homeless services agency
integrated ad-
vocacy practice as a core departmental function. However,
although it
contained the six building blocks of a progressive advocacy
program,
several factors prevented the building blocks from reaching
their full
depth, thereby limiting the extent to which the department fully
represented
a progressive advocacy program. Each of these factors is
described below.
Need for Greater Leadership Commitment
The existence of an advocacy program reflects the support of
the Ex-
ecutive Director and the senior management team. From 1993 to
2003,
the Board never appeared interested in the agency's advocacy
activities
and staff perceived this to be positive given the Board
composition. For
example, some perceived the Board as fully embracing HH's
charity role,
but much less comfortable with a social change role. The
Board's faith
and trust in the ED allowed him to give resources to this
function with
very little explanation. While the lack of Board involvement
helped to
stave off objections to the advocacy work, it also prevented the
leverag-
ing of the contacts and resources of individual Board members.
Prior to

2003, advocacy was never reflected in the agency mission,
vision, or
value statements. However, after a 2003-2004 strategic planning
pro-
cess, "advocacy on behalf of the poor" and "empowering the
people we
serve" were listed as agency values. One might observe that the
phrase
"advocacy on behalf of the poor" reflects a paternalistic lens
toward cli-
ents rather than a lens equal partnership and responsibility for
social
change.
More Investment in Constituency Engagement
Over the years, a general hesitancy by the leadership to fully
embrace,
support, and unleash the power of agency constituency w as
demon-
strated in the low resources given to develop CARE membership
(half-
time staff), and the degree of internal advocacy required to
maintain
agency support for CARE as a mechanism to develop
constituent lead-
ership and political involvement. Efforts to expand and
institutionalize
constituent involvement agency-wide throughout all programs
was con-
tinually not supported by agency leadership. For example, the
AC sub-

mitted a concept paper for an agency-wide program where each
agency
program would run a political education group where program
partici-
pants could gather to share grievances and work collectively to
address
them. The concept paper included a timeline for implementation
and de-
scribed the power that such an effort could yield, but the
Executive Di-
rector did not see the value it would bring to the agency for the
required
investment. Despite repeated efforts to phase in an integrated
constituent
engagement program throughout agency programs, those efforts
failed
in the face of competing agency priorities and limited resources.
Vulnerability to Eunders
In addition, although agency leadership gave the advocacy
department
tremendous autonomy in selecting and framing the issues it
worked on,
leadership also asked the department to engage in advocacy to
address
agency interests, for example, protecting funding or adverse
effects
from proposed legislation or regulations. Over the years, the
advocacy
department would come under closer scrutiny and tighter
control b y .
agency leadership when the advocacy department targeted its
efforts
against potential funding sources. Even though the agency had
highly

diverse funding sources, it still felt hesitant about "biting the
hand that
fed it," even if the portions were quite small.
Small Department Relative to Agency Size
and Diversity of Constituent Needs
By the time the founding advocacy director left, the department
had
grown to include 21/2 full-time staff, and a program budget of
roughly
$150,000, approximately 1.5% of the agency's $10 million
operating
budget. Only one of the staff was doing advocacy full-time, the
other full-
time staff person split her time between CARE and the Social
Justice
program. The Advocacy Director worked half-time doing
advocacy
while supervising other programs, including an emerging
housing de-
velopment department. Consequently, for a large agency with
more than
30 programs, additional staff were needed to adequately address
all of
the issues experienced by the entire agency's Constituenc y. For
example,
although the agency was active in numerous coalitions or
working groups
related to homelessness, housing, health care, substance abuse
treatment,

and income security, it was not active in coalitions for the
elderly, men-
tal health, workforce development, and many other iireas that
intersect
with homelessness. Additional staff were needed to actively
participate
and drive other advocacy priorities, and to also spend time
meaningfully
engaging constituents seeking services in all agency programs.
Minimal Opportunities for Reflection
The Advocacy Department envisioned offering social justice
reflec-
tions as a regular package of development workshops extended
to agency
staff. However, although new staff were asked to participate in
one re-
flection as part of their orientation, additional opportunities to
reflect
more deeply on homelessness were not provided as a regular
option for
staff based on a cost-benefit perception.
CONCLUSION
Developing an advocacy program in a human services program
re-
quires strong leadership, diverse funding sources, and full -time
staff
dedicated to advocacy. Achieving a progressive advocacy
program re-
quires agency commitment to awakening the power in the
constituency
it serves, strengthening it through leadership development,
allowing con-

stituent priorities to drive the agency's advocacy agenda, and
building
power through coalitions. Providing opportunities for staff,
volunteers,
and constituents to reflect on the advocacy practice and/or the
conditions
which bring about human need may re-energize movements,
deepen
understanding, and renew energy and creativity for the ongoing
work of
social change.
More research on each one of these factors as it relates to
human ser-
vice agency advocacy is needed. Possible research questions
include:
What leadership styles and characteristics lend themselves to
integrating
a progressive advocacy program at human service agencies?
What meth-
ods can be used to cultivate and nurture social change leaders?
Does
funding from local governments affect nonproflt human service
advocacy
directed toward local policy decisions? Does funding source
change the
shape, motivation behind, and purpose of nonprofit human
service
advocacy? How do you integrate participatory decision-making
models
into social service and social change organizations in a way that

advances
task-centered goals? What is the best way to link community
organizing
and social service activities for social change? How do we
evaluate advo-
cacy and constituent development activities? Does reflection on
under-
lying causes of human needs truly create a commitment to social
change
practice within participants, and what are the factors that create
that
change? What are the stages in the organizational
transformation process
from social service to social change, and what does it take to
move agen-
cies along that continuum?
Research findings on organizational characteristics related to
advocacy
could be applied to developing social work and nonprofit
management
curricula that advance advocacy practices and inform the
development
of institutional models that support a mission of social justice.
For ex-
amples, social work curricula should include content on
participatory
decision-making, popular education, and other tools to help
students
learn how to meaningfully engage constituents in policy
processes.
Foundation year social work should include a course on policy
practice
that includes analyzing policies, developing an advocacy
strategy, en-
gaging in various tactics, and using media to advance advocacy

mes-
sages. The dual focus of the social work profession to service
and
justice should be stressed and infused throughout the foundation
year.
Social work students should learn about how racism and other
forms of
oppression have been constructed and discuss strategies to
begin to de-
construct these inequities through policy and organizational
structures.
Management courses should include content on transformational
lead-
ership (Burns, 1978) or other leadership styles that go beyond
manage-
ment and embrace leadership for a shared purpose. Implications
for
social work practice include the importance of nonprofit human
service
agency leadership to integrate and strengthen the building
blocks for
progressive advocacy practice. Social workers at entry and mid-
levels
should be prepared to advocate for and support efforts within
their own
agency to develop these building blocks.
Gibelman and Kraft (1996) stated that in light of government's
ever-
decreasing investment in social welfare programs, "advocacy
needs to be
institutionalized and strengthened as a program of service" (p.
43) more
than ever. Social workers make up a large share ofthe staff
employed by
human service agencies. Consequently, social work educators

have a
responsibility to develop within social work students an
appreciation
for integrating direct service and macro practice functions. As
the na-
tion continues to shift its priorities and dollars away from
domestic is-
sues and toward global threats, the devolutionary trend of
government
service programs will only worsen. Social work educators and
others
who care about social justice must act now to prepare those
working
with disenfranchised populations how to argue for policies and
pro-
grams that uplift and empower people.
NOTES
1. Direct lobbying involves communicating directly with a
policy decision-maker to
express an opinion about specific or proposed legislation.
Grassroots lobbying in-
volves communicating the agency's opinion about specific or
proposed legislation to
the general public, including a call to action.
2. The agency name has been changed.
REFERENCES

Alexander, J., Nank, R., & Stivers, C. (1999). Implications of
welfare refonn: Do non-
profit survival strategies threaten civil society? Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 28(4), 452-475.
Alliance for Justice (2004). Investing in change: Afunder's
guide to supporting advo-
cacy. Washington, DC. Alliance for Justice.
Avner, M. (2004). The lobbying and advocacy handbook for
nonprofit organizations:
Shaping public policy at the state and local level. St. Paul, MN:
Amherst H. Wilder
Foundation.
Bass, B. & Avolio, B. (1994). Improving organizational
effectiveness through trans-
formational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Boris, E. & Krehely, J. (2002). Civic participation and
advocacy. In The State of Non-
profit America, edited by Lester Salamon, pp. 299-330.
Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Bums, J.M. (1978). Leadersiiip. New York: NY. Harper & Row.
Cohen, D. (2001). Critical lessons learned in social justice
advocacy: United States,
South Asia, and Southern Africa. Paper presented at the Urban
Institute seminar on
Nonprofit Advocacy and the Policy Process, Washington, DC,
May 18, 2001.
DeVita, C , Montilla, M., Reid, B., & Fatiregun, O. (2004).

Organizational factors
influencing advocacy for children. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Donaldson, L. P. (2004). Toward Validating Therapeutic
Benefits of Empower-
ment-Oriented Social Action Groups. Social Work with Groups,
27, 2/3, 159-175.
Donaldson, L. P. (2005). Dissertation. Organizational Factors as
Correlates of Advo-
cacy Behavior in Nonprofit Human Service Agencies in
Washington, DC.
Egri, C.P. & Frost, P.J. (1994). Introduction. Leadership for
environmental and social
change. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 195-200.
Epstein, I. (1981). Advocates on advocacy: An exploratory
study. Social Woric Re-
search and Abstracts, 17(1), 5-12.
Flynn, J. ( 1992). Social agency policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Gibelman, M, & Kraft, S. (1996). Advocacy as a core agency
program: Planning con-
siderations for voluntary human service agencies.
Administration in Social Work,
20(4), 43-59,
Gronbjerg, K, (1993). Understanding nonprofit funding:
Managing revenues in .social

seiyices and community development organizations. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Hepworth, D., Rooney, R. & Larsen, J. (2002) Direct social
work practice: Theory and
skills, 6" ed. Pacifica Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Home, A. (1991), Mobilizing women's strengths for social
change: The group connec-
tion. Social Work with Groups, 14, 3/4, 153-173,
Hickman, G,R, (1997), Transforming organizations to transform
society. Transfor-
mational Leadership Working Papers. College Park, MD:
Academy of Leadership
Press
Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy:
Policy cycles and policy
subsystems, (2" Ed). New York: Oxford University Press,
Hudson, P. (1998a). The voluntary sector, the state, and
citizenship in the United
Kingdom. Social Service Review, 72(4), 452-465.
Jansson, B. (2003). Becoming an effective policy advocate:
From policy practice to so-
cial justice. 4"̂ ed. Pacific Cove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Jenkins, C. (1987). Nonprofit organizations and policy
advocacy. In W. W. Powell
(Ed), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, New Haven,
CT: Yale Univer-
sity Press.

Kaufman, R, (2001), Coalition activity of social change
organizations in a public cam-
paign: The influence of motives, resources, and processes on
levels of activity.
Journal of Community Practice, 9(4), p. 21-42,
Kingdon, J,W. (1995), Agendas, alternatives, and public
policies (2"'' ed,). New York:
Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.
Kramer, R, (1994), Voluntary agencies and the contract culture:
Dream or nightmare?
Social Service Review, 68( 1 ), 33-60.
Kramer, R. (1985), The future of the voluntary agency in a
mixed economy. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 21(4), 377-391.
Libby, M. & Austin, M. (2002). Building a coalition of non-
profit agencies to collabo-
rate with a county health and human services agency: The Napa
County Behavioral
Health Committee of the Napa Coalition of Nonprofits.
Administration in Social
Work, 26(4), p. 81-99.
Matsuak, L.R, ( 1997). Finding your voice: Learning to lead
anywhere you want to make
a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
McCarthy, J. & Castelli, J. (1996), "Studying Advocacy in the
Nonprofit Sector: Refo-
cusing the Agenda." Draft paper prepared for the Independent
Sector Spring Forum,
Mizrahi, T. & Rosenthal, B. (2001). Complexities of coalition

building: Leaders' suc-
cesses, strategies, struggles, and solutions. Social Work, 46(1),
p. 63-78.
National Association of Social Workers, (1996). Code of ethics,
Washington, DC:
NASW Press.
Nelson, G. (1994). The development of a mental health
coalition: A case study. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 22(2), p. 229-256.
O'Connell, B. (1994). People power: Service, advocacy,
empowerment. Washington,
DC: The Foundation Center.
OMBWatch, Charily Lobbying and the Public Interest, Tufts
University. (2002).
Strengthening nonprofit advocacy project. Washington, DC.
Reinelt, C. (1994). Fostering empowerment, building
community: The challenge for
state-funded feminist organizations. Human Relations, 47(6),
685-704.
Roberts-DeGennaro, M. (1997). Conceptual framework of
coalitions in an organiza-
tional context. Journal of Community Practice, 4(1), p. 97-107.
Rost, J.C. (1991 ). Leadership for the twenty-first century.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Saidel, J. & Harlan, S. (1998). Contracting and patterns of

nonprofit governance. Non-
profit Management and Leadership, 8(3), 243-259.
Salamon, L. (1995, March). Exploring Nonprofit Advocacy.
Paper presented at the
Independent Sector Spring Research Forum, Alexandria, VA,
March 15, 1995.
Selsky, J.W. & Smith, A.E. (1994). Community
entrepreneurship: A framework for
social change leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 277-296.
Smith & Lipsky (1993). Nonprofits for hire. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University
Press.
Sosin, M. (1986). Private benefits: Material assistance in the
private sector. New
York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.
Stevens, S.K. (2001). Nonprofit Lifecycles: Stage-Based
Wisdom for Nonprofit
Capacity. Minneapolis: LarsonAllen Public Service Group.
Tefft, G. (1987). Advocacy coalitions as a vehicle for mental
health system reform: A
case study. In E. Bennett (Ed.), Social intervention: Theory and
practice, (pp.
155-185). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Wolch, J. (1990). The shadow state: Government and voluntary
sector in transition.
Washington, DC: The Foundation Center.
Wong, C. K. (1993). State-funded social work projects for

social reform: Reflections
from community organizing in Hong Kong. International Social
Work, 36,249-260.
doi: 10.1300/J147v32n02_03
APPENDIX
Ideal Characteristics of a Human Service Agency
with a Fully Integrated Progressive Advocacy Program
1. Advocacy/social change activities are written into the
mission statement,
vision statement, and core values of the agency;
2. The agency budget has a line-item supporting at least one or
more full-
time staff people to carry out activities of the advocacy
department.
3. The advocacy department has the support of a
communications officer
to help frame media messages, plan and implement a
communications
strategy to support advocacy goals, and develop relationships
with print
media reporters and TV/radio personalities.
4. The advocacy program is valued equally to service functions
(as dem-
onstrated on organizational chart and in resource allocation
practices);

5. Institutionalized practices exist to build the agency advocacy
agenda
from constituent experiences and priorities. For example,
service pro-
grams could run weekly popular education and current affairs
groups
that could be a vehicle for airing and building a strategy to
address col-
lective grievances. This strategy could inform and dri ve the
overall
agency advocacy agenda.
6. Regular opportunities for staff and volunteers to reflect on
structural in-
equities and "isms" which underlie the reasons their
constituents seek
services.
7. The agency has mechanisms to mobilize donors, volunteers,
constitu-
ents, and other key stakeholders to advance a social change
agenda.
8. The agency board has a policy or advocacy committee which
gives sup-
port to advocacy activities, including giving solicited advice,
making
strategic phone calls, visiting elected officials, and mobilizing
their own
well-placed contacts.
9. A strategic planning process that meaningfully includes
constituents
and staff at all levels where building an advocacy agenda and
action

' plan are one of the focus areas.
10. A diversified funding portfolio to minimize dependency on
one or two
funders.

Developing a Progressive AdvocacyProgram Within a HumanS

More Related Content

Similar to Developing a Progressive AdvocacyProgram Within a HumanS (19)

More from LinaCovington707 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Developing a Progressive AdvocacyProgram Within a HumanS