Electronic Advocacy by Non-Profit Organizations in Social Welfare Policy Formation: A Framework and Results of a Study John G. McNutt, Boston College Kate Boland, United Way of Camden County, NJ

Overview of the Presentation Purpose of the Study Research Questions Definition Population of Interest Time Spent on Advocacy Framework Commonly Use Techniques Policy Areas Addressed Perceived Effectiveness Perceived Barriers Summary of Findings Future Research

Purpose of the Study To examine the current application of Electronic Advocacy techniques by the affiliates of a national social work professional association

Research Questions Electronic Advocacy techniques used in policy change efforts Types of issues addressed Perceived barriers

Definition of Electronic Advocacy “… the use of technologically intensive media as a means to influence stakeholders to effect policy change” (Edward Fitzgerald & John McNutt, 1996)

Population of Interest Local affiliates of a national social work professional association IRS Classification 501 (C) 6 Profession and Association have a historical commitment to advocacy

Reported Time Spent on Policy Activities

Framework for Analyzing Emerging Techniques

Policy Areas Addressed Using Electronic Advocacy Techniques Welfare Reform 66% Managed Care 66% Mental Health 55% Health Care 55% Licensing 53% Children’s Issues 45% Aging Issues 27% Violence 23% Criminal Justice 21%

Most Frequently Used Techniques E-Mail based Techniques E-Mail for Internal Coordination 73% Distribution List 55% E-Mail to Decision-makers 51% E-Mail for Internal Coordination 46% Internet based Techniques WebPage 28% Links to Policy Sites 21% Collateral Techniques Fax 96% Conference Call 77% Discussion Lists for Policy Research 45%

Perceived Effectiveness & Perceived Use By Other Groups 7 point scale 1 = not very effective Mean = 3.2 Perceived Use By Other Groups 7 point scale 1 = never Mean = 3.3

Perceived Barriers to Using Electronic Advocacy Techniques Expertise 66% Expense 57% Awareness 49% Equipment 45% Universal Access 38% External Resistance 13% Space 13% Internal Resistance 6% Staff Resistance 4% Management Approval 2%

Summary of Results Policy Areas Addressed Techniques Used Barriers

Future Research Effectiveness with Decision-makers Differences across Organizational Fields Use of Specific Techniques