Not‐for‐Profit Advocacy: Challenging Policy Images and Pursuing Policy Change

Abstract

The not‐for‐profit sector has long played an important role in the policy process through encouraging political engagement, policy research and advocacy, and service delivery. This paper examines two not‐for‐profit organizations, National Children's Alliance and National Alliance on Mental Illness, both of which are grassroots organizations formed to radically change public and professional perceptions of their respective issues and reform the way services are offered to those in need. Borrowing from the literature on policy image and agenda setting, we identify the strategies used by these two highly successful not‐for‐profit groups in their efforts to change the system through redefining problems, reframing issues, and securing legislation with the help of policy entrepreneurs and politicians sympathetic to their causes.

Participatory Spaces of Mental Health Service User Organizations in the Post-deinstitutional Era: Mapping Roles and Challenges

“…This has resulted in evolved relationships with professionals and policy makers. Texts focused on MHSUO participation in policy processes examine service user participation in terms of the forms (Campbell 2008;Janzen et al 2007;Stewart et al 2008;Tse et al 2012), barriers (Kleintjes et al 2013a) and contributions (Battams and Johnson 2009;Borkmann and Munn-Giddings 2008;Vaughan and Arsneault 2008).…”

Dissemination Activities: a Critical new Role for Substance Abuse Treatment Organizations

“…21, 22, 23 Dissemination actions by treatment providers may also represent efforts to change policies, systems and institutionalized practices and thus represent advocacy for EBPs. 24, 25, 26 Despite a growing interest in marshaling a range of resources for EBP dissemination, prior studies have not explored the determinants of voluntary dissemination behavior by treatment providers.…”

“…25,28 For example, human service organizations tend to become involved with advocacy efforts when powerful individuals become aligned with the need. 26, 27 An alternative view is that leaders may have limited impact and organizational dissemination activities reflect characteristics such as size and industry position. 30, 31 The central question addressed by this study is the extent to which each of these two perspectives explains the variation in CTP dissemination activities.…”

“…Previous studies have suggested that important support for organizations undertaking advocacy activities is the presence of an organized constituency such as that provided by a professional association of treatment center directors. 25, 26 This may link treatment center directors with the EBP movement within the SUD treatment field, leading them to advocate for EBP use, and to be sought by other center directors and government officials for information and insights. Social relationships where information and influence are shared tend to reinforce the director's professional identity.…”

“…44, 45 Previous studies also suggest that service provider advocacy actions are facilitated by the presence of an organized group of supportive professionals. 25, 26 Treatment centers may fulfill their advocacy role by working collaboratively with other treatment providers members of an association to influence important government policies and regulations in directions consistent with treatment organization priorities and preferences.

Hypothesis 2a: A treatment center's membership in a provider association will be positively related to the level of EBP dissemination activities.

…”