Influential or Insignificant? The Effectiveness of Non-profit Advocacy in Augusta-Richmond County Government
Kristie Johnson Gregory
Abstract
Nonprofit organizations are usually
associated with their charitable missions, service to underserved populations,
and commitment to community improvement. Nonprofits are generally not known for
their political involvement. Nevertheless, dependency upon government funding
and other factors often create a situation where it is beneficial for nonprofit
leaders to communicate with elected officials. This paper specifically explores
the relationship between nonprofit organizations in the Central Savannah River
Area (CSRA) and
Influential or Insignificant? The Effectiveness of Non-profit Advocacy in Augusta-Richmond County Government
It is generally accepted in the field of public administration that the paths of the public sector and nonprofit sectors must cross at some point. This research seeks to discover what happens when the two meet. Is the relationship contentious or amicable? What factors affect the nature of this relationship? Does a standing relationship even exist?
Using
a theoretical research approach, this study will focus on nonprofits in the
Central Savannah River Area (CSRA) and the perceptions of the effectiveness of
their advocacy efforts with
With the number of public-private partnerships in local communities growing and the increased demand for grassroots and faith-based organizations to play a larger role in solving numerous social problems, this type of study is critical to the progress of nonprofit and government relations. This study will seek to answer these specific questions:
- How effective are nonprofit agencies in the CSRA in advocating for their cause?
- What specific factors affect the perceptions of the
effectiveness of the advocacy efforts of local nonprofits with
Literature
Review
There is a vast amount of research devoted to analyzing the effectiveness of nonprofits in communities and their relationships with local governments. Most of the literature is in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and position papers. This review includes studies that examine regulatory challenges, increasing devolution, global impact, network analysis, and other factors that impact nonprofits’ overall effectiveness and their collaboration efforts with the government.
The role of nonprofits in the
It
is a well documented fact that nonprofits who receive public funding are bound
by federal regulations. This occurrence can cause a considerable amount of
strain on the rapport between nonprofit leadership and legislators. It has been
reported that the lack of knowledge of laws governing policy participation is a
huge barrier to nonprofit advocacy. According to a 2007 study, only 72% of
nonprofit organizations know they can support or oppose federal legislation
(Bass, Arons, Guinane, & Carter, 2007). A better understanding of the
importance of policy participation amongst nonprofit leaders will lead to
increased advocacy efforts. The question of whether or not government funding
suppresses nonprofit political activity is also taken into consideration. Using
a national sample of religious congregations and a longitudinal sample of
nonprofit organizations in the Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Many organizations
enlist their clients in the advocacy process. Chung (2005) examined this
phenomenon with two case studies outlining how two Korean-American
organizations in
Empowerment of the organization itself can be an issue for many nonprofits when it comes to advocacy. The Strengthening Nonprofit Advocacy Project (SNAP) reported that nonprofit policy participation is generally low (Bass, Arons, Guinane, & Carter, 2007). There are three major sources of low policy participation amongst nonprofits: limited resources, misconceptions about lobbying law, and limited staff and volunteer skills (Baumgarten, 2004; Bass, Arons, Guinane, & Carter, 2007). Many different techniques have been proposed to solve these problems. Capacity building is seen as a positive approach towards increasing nonprofit advocacy. As an organization’s capacity to advocate grows, so does its advocacy efforts (Baumgarten, 2004; Bass, Arons, Guinane, & Carter, 2007; Guthrie, Louie, David, & Foster, 2005). Nonprofits are also encouraged to become more sophisticated and organizationally complex to advocate more frequently and effectively (Boris & Krehely, 2002). It is suggested that nonprofit leaders remember that part of their duty calls for advocacy and civic engagement (Bass, 2007). This sentiment should be included in the mission and vision statements of organizations. As nonprofit leaders begin to view themselves as experts in their fields and advocates for their causes, their policy participation increases (Boris & Krehely, 2002).
Language is another critical concern when trying to increase the policy participation of nonprofits. In addition to making advocacy a main focus in the mission and vision statements, nonprofits should also choose the words that they use to describe this action carefully. There is a growing debate in the nonprofit sector regarding whether it is more appropriate to use the word advocacy or lobbying when engaging in policy participation (Baumgarten, 2004; Bass, 2007; Bass, Arons, Guinane, & Carter, 2007). Advocacy can refer to any act of political participation ranging from testifying on Capitol Hill to registering clients to vote. Lobbying, on the other hand, refers to specific interaction with an elected official to influence his or her vote (Baumgarten, 2004). Advocacy seems to be the preferred term, mainly because the word ‘lobbying’ has been widely associated with dishonesty and crime (Baumgarten, 2004; Bass, 2007; Bass, Arons, Guinane, & Carter, 2007).
A lack of motivation has also been identified as a key component in nonprofits’ reluctant mood toward advocacy. The SNAP study took aim at this particular phenomenon (Bass, Arons, Guinane, & Carter, 2007). The study found that even when nonprofits engage in public policy matters, 46% of those nonprofits do not think of themselves as influencing policy. There also seemed to be a general fear of government “retribution” for advocating amongst the nonprofits that were surveyed. The SNAP authors found that one of the most important keys to strengthening nonprofit advocacy would be finding ways to motivate politically inactive nonprofits. They suggest that nonprofit leaders make advocacy and lobbying a part of their ordinary tasks and find a way to recreate the passion for the cause that led them to the nonprofit sector (Bass, Arons, Guinane, & Carter, 2007).
The
issues of devolution and privatization are also important in shaping nonprofit
advocacy. The president and CEO of the National Urban League, Marc Morial (2004) contends in his essay that “devolution of resources
and responsibilities to nonprofits and local governments [from the federal
government] is the most efficient way to implement federal policies”. Citing
his experience, serving as mayor of
The
issues surrounding nonprofit impact and government collaboration are not
exclusive to the
When examined from a global perspective, policy network analyses are a popular framework for nonprofit advocacy efforts. Charlotte Streck (2001, 2002), Counsel for International and Environmental Law with the World Bank, focused on global public policy networks (GPPN). The 2001 study looked at the complexities of the relationship between international organizations and international environmental governance. Streck concluded that GPPN’s are a creative and innovative solution to many global challenges. The author stressed that the flexible and integrative nature of GPPN structure makes it easier for international organizations to work with multiple national governments. Streck’s 2002 study explores GPPN’s role as coalitions for change. This article cited the World Commission on Dams, the Global Environment Facility, and the Kyoto Protocol as examples of successful GPPN structures. As in the 2001 piece, the author notes that GPPN structures surpass the limitations that plague traditional bureaucracies. The Streck articles (2001, 2002) do much to present policy networks as a model for effective collaboration efforts.
Mikkelsen (2006) also utilized an analysis of policy networks to explain policy development. The author suggested that policy network analysis can be used as a strategic tool for nonprofit organizations. While the author admitted that stronger theories should be developed in this area, Mikkelsen still concluded that network analysis should be used by nonprofits because the process often leads to a better understanding of collaborative relationships. Mikkelsen also states that “to continue to be helpful to a nonprofit organization, network analysis has to be followed by nurturing; it is not enough to understand the relationships that matter, they must be maintained”. Like the Streck (2001, 2002) study, this article also highlights the benefits of using a policy network analysis model to examine public-private partnerships.
Network analysis can also be used in a social capital framework. Walker (2004) provided a case study of New Zealand’s Strengthening Families initiative as an example of how a “policy network/ social capital” framework can be employed to improve collaborative efforts. In the conclusion, the author asserted that the traditional concerns of public administration-- efficiency, effectiveness, equity, responsiveness, and responsibility-- apply to network structures just as much as they apply to traditional hierarchies.
The work presented here provides a strong foundation for the research proposed in this paper. Nonprofit advocacy can be examined in many different contexts and several different factors should be considered—everything from language issues to analysis methods. The studies cited in this review represent a small percentage of the vast body of literature devoted to nonprofit-governmental relations. Each study offers a unique viewpoint of issues surrounding the relationship between nonprofit organizers and government leaders.
Methodology
This research assumed the following working model:
Clients contact a nonprofit most often when they have a need. In the process of serving the client, nonprofit organizers formulate an agenda based on the most significant needs of their clientele. Nonprofit leaders then contact lawmakers to advocate for policies that meet their clients’ most pressing needs. This study explored how often new policies are the direct or indirect result of the advocacy efforts of nonprofit organizations in the CSRA.
Because this was
qualitative research concerned with nominal level data, a cross-sectional research
design was used. Semi-structured interviewing was the primary method of data
collection for this project. There were three target populations: nonprofit
leaders in the CSRA, local elected officials, and the county administrator.
Nonprofit leader participants were selected through a simple random sampling
design. Lists of local nonprofit organizations were obtained from the
The
second target population of this research was
Three different semi-structured interview scripts were created and administered to the three different target populations. The scripts were designed to seek out specific information about the perceptions subjects held about their relationship with governments and nonprofit organizations. The questions observed frequency of contact, relational perception, influence perceptions and demographic information for the purposes of discovering trends and patterns. After the results were compiled, answers were grouped and scaled, and frequency tabulations were conducted in a spreadsheet program. The scales were created after the interviews were conducted in order to ensure accurate ranges for the interviewed populations. Copies of the scripts and results are located in the Appendices.
Results
Nonprofit leaders. In all, 10 of the initial 30 nonprofit leaders that were contacted responded to the first contact and agreed to participate in the study. One more agreed to participate after the second contact, resulting in a total sample population of 11 nonprofit leaders. All of the interviews were conducted via telephone and took an average of eleven minutes to complete. In every case each question was read to the participant and then they were given the opportunity to respond. When questions that included scales were asked, the options were listed for the participant from least to greatest and then the participant was given the opportunity to respond. Questions three, eleven and fourteen were the only three that could not be scaled (see Appendix A). Number three asked respondents to name which elected officials they felt were the most responsive to their organizations’ needs. Number eleven asked respondents to list the current board of directors and number fourteen asked about the demographic population that the organization serves. The answers to these questions were so specific and wide-ranging that they could not be quantified in any way. At the offset most of the nonprofit leaders were eager to participate and happy to talk about their organizations. A few exhibited some apprehension and were reluctant to talk about advocacy with elected officials.
The nonprofit leader interview responses yield a few notable trends. When asked which elected officials are the most responsive to your organization’s needs, approximately 70% of all respondents include Augusta Mayor Deke Copenhaver in their response. Of that group, nearly one third of the respondents identify the mayor as the only responsive elected official.
There
also seems to be a small connection between frequency of meetings with elected
officials and the description of the relationship with
An organization’s board of directors also seems to be connected to the nonprofit leader’s perception of effective advocacy. An examination of respondents’ board structures revealed an average board size of 16.6 members. Most boards had a strong higher education and corporate presence. There were four individuals who serve on two or more of the boards of the organizations that participated in the study. About 80% of the respondents feel that members of their board of directors are effective advocates for their organizations. Nonprofit leaders often said that their board was their “best asset” as far as advocacy was concerned.
Overall, the nonprofit leader responses are similar to the findings of the SNAP study (Bass, Arons, Guinane, & Carter, 2007). Nonprofit leaders report generally low levels of advocacy efforts with the local government and most really do not view themselves as policy participants. Only one respondent specifically said that she believed that it was a part of her job as executive director to advocate and build relationships with lawmakers. Most nonprofit leaders pointed out that they feel more comfortable building relationships with other nonprofits rather than elected officials.
Figure 1. Perceptions of effectiveness increase as number of contacts with elected officials increase
Elected officials and county administrator. Only 4 out of the 18 local elected officials that were contacted participated in the study. All elected officials who had a publicly available email address were contacted initially by email. All others were contacted by phone. No one responded to the initial contact. All of the elected officials then received a follow-up phone call. Five responded to the follow-up and set an appointment for a telephone interview, but only four actually kept the appointment. The interviews were conducted via telephone and took an average of nine minutes to complete. As noted with the nonprofit leader interviews, each question was read to the participant and then they were given the opportunity to respond. When questions that included scales were asked, the options were listed for the participant from least to greatest and then the participant was given the opportunity to respond. Question number three was the only question that could not be scaled on the elected official interview due to its’ specific nature (see Appendix B). Even though a 22% response rate is statistically insignificant, the four respondents did offer some interesting insights about their relationships with the CSRA’s nonprofit community.
It should be noted that one of the respondents was almost always identified as one of the most responsive elected officials by nonprofit leaders. This same respondent reports being contacted by nonprofit advocates “10 times a month” and proactively seeking out the opinions of nonprofit leaders when making policy decisions “on a regular basis”. All of the respondents point out that older, larger, and well established nonprofit organizations tend to advocate more effectively for their causes.
While all of the
respondents also give a positive description of their relationship with local
nonprofits, they exhibit a stark difference when it comes to how influential
nonprofits are in their personal policy decision making processes. One
respondent said that nonprofits were very influential in his decision making
process, while another said that nonprofits were not at all influential. This
particular finding is interesting because it may indicate a difference in
attitude based on which branch of
Figure 2. Even though both the mayor and commissioner report high levels of contact with nonprofits, only the mayor feels that nonprofits strongly influence policy decisions
The other two
respondents are members of
Figure 3. It is
possible that as length of time in office increases, so does the likelihood
that elected officials will contact nonprofit leaders for input when making
policy decisions.
The
The administrator exhibited an overall positive attitude regarding his relationship with the CSRA’s nonprofit community. He reports that he is contacted two to three times a week by nonprofit leaders advocating for their organization and says that he actively seeks out the opinion of nonprofit leaders when making administrative decisions about two to three times a month. He indicates that nonprofits are somewhat influential in his decision making process and believes that they are just as influential in shaping public opinion in the CSRA.
The administrator’s responses are more interesting when compared to the responses of the nonprofit leaders. Most nonprofit leaders report that they have a positive relationship with the county administrator. However, most nonprofit leaders also reported low levels of contact with the county administrator which is in direct contrast to the high levels of contact with nonprofits reported by the county administrator. This suggests that the nonprofits that are contacting the administrator simply did not participate in the study or that a select few of the nonprofits have found the administrator to be helpful and maintain that relationship by staying in close contact with him.
Discussion
Unfortunately, the response rate
is too low in this study to make any broad generalizations about the larger
populations. The results do, however, begin to shed some light on the original
questions that this research set out to answer. Based on the responses, it is
safe to presume that local nonprofits are at least somewhat effective in their
advocacy efforts with
The largest drawback to this study is the poor response rate, particularly with local elected officials. There are some possible explanations for the poor response and some interesting conclusions can be drawn from it.
Timing
can probably be cited as a factor contributing to the poor response from
elected officials. The Georgia General Assembly was in session during the time
that the interviews were conducted. Given the fact that the local delegation
spends most of their time in
The
Augusta-Richmond County Commissioners’ underwhelming response probably had more
to do with reluctance than timing. The Augusta-Richmond County Commission has a
well documented reputation for being divisive and uncooperative with one
another. Whether this perception is true or untrue, it probably hinders many
commission members from wanting to speak off of the record to anyone. Nevertheless,
one commissioner did participate in this study. The
The nonprofit leaders had a 36% response rate. This is much better than the elected officials, but still not enough to exhibit any statistical significance amongst the results. As reported in the results, nonprofits who contact their legislators are generally optimistic about their relationship with the government and feel that their efforts are somewhat effective. The deficit lies in the collective perception, prevalent amongst nonprofit leaders, that nonprofits are not actors in the government’s policy making process.
The challenge uncovered by the results of this study may not be finding a way to increase the effectiveness of nonprofit advocacy in the CSRA, but it could be discovering a way to motivate local nonprofits to participate in the policy process. Nonprofits cannot advocate at all, much less advocate effectively, if they do not even feel empowered enough to begin the process.
Conclusion
The
results of this study were expected to explain, on some level, how the
relationship between nonprofits and local elected officials in
This study did much to identify a crucial challenge facing nonprofit advocacy in the CSRA and set the stage to initiate a dialogue that could lead to possible solutions. The apparent lack of motivation to advocate local government officials seems to be a barrier for nonprofits in the CSRA. There are some positive patterns indicated by the results that help to break this barrier. First, the nonprofits that do advocate with local elected officials are doing so effectively, and they are able to generally maintain positive relationships with local lawmakers. It also helps that the mayor and county administrator exhibit supportive and inclusive attitudes towards nonprofit leaders.
To continue on the path towards increasing motivation amongst nonprofits to participate in the policy process, there are some ideas that nonprofit leaders and elected officials should consider looking into. Nonprofits that are advocating effectively may consider encouraging less active organizations by offering them assistance with getting started in the process. As less active organizations begin to collaborate with more active organizations, they can begin to link their organizations to local elected officials. Local elected officials, by their own admission, tend to communicate more with larger, well established nonprofits. Perhaps the local government should consider examining ways to build “in roads” for smaller, less visible organizations to participate in the policy process. In the same spirit, less established nonprofits can do some things to make their causes more visible to lawmakers. They may begin to attend commission meetings or consider having a legislative event in an effort to begin building a relationship with local elected officials.
The
motivation dilemma is certainly not limited to nonprofits in the CSRA.
Acknowledgment of the issue is only the beginning to alleviating the problem.
Hopefully, this study will help to acknowledge that lack of motivation is a
challenge that nonprofits face when it comes to advocating effectively with
There are also implications for further studies. The perceptions of advocacy effectiveness can be examined on the state and federal levels as well, if given enough resources and time. Most studies that focus on nonprofit advocacy only survey nonprofit leaders. This study attempted to survey elected officials, but the low response rate makes the results less reliable. It would be interesting to see a larger study that surveys all of the stakeholders involved in nonprofit advocacy—the nonprofit leaders, elected officials, and nonprofit clients.
References
Bass, G., Arons, D., Guinane, K., & Carter, M.F. (2007). Seen but not heard:
Strengthening nonprofit advocacy.
Bass, G. D. (2007). Advocacy is not
a dirty word.,
Baumgarten, Liz. (2004). Building
capacity for public policy advocacy.
for Nonprofit Management. Available online from: http://www.allianceonline.
org/Members/Enhance/enhance_june_2004.enh/building_capacity_for.epage.
[Accessed
16 February 2008].
Chaves, M., Galaskiewicz, J. & Stephens, L. (2004) Does government funding
suppress
nonprofits’ political activity?, American Sociological Review,
69(2): 292-316.
Boris, E. T. & Krehely, J.
(2002). Civic participation and advocacy, in The State of
Nonprofit
Institution Press.
Chinnock, K. & Salamon, L. (2002) Determinants of nonprofit impact: a preliminary
analysis,
article presented at the Fifth
International ISTR Conference,
istr/conference/capetown/volume/chinnock.pdf [Accessed 23 October 2007].
Chung, A. Y. (2005) Politics without the politics: the evolving political cultures
of
ethnic non-profits in Koreatown,
Migration Studies, 31(5): 911-929.
Guthrie, K., Louie, J., David, T. & Foster, C. C. (2005). The challenge of
assessing advocacy: Strategies for a prospective approach to evaluating
policy change and advocacy.
and Design.
Hula, R.C. & Jackson-Elmoore, C. (2000) Non-profit organizations, minority political
incorporation,
and local governance, in Non-profits in
Urban
Leroux, K. (2007). Nonprofit as civic intermediaries: The role of community-
based
organizations in promoting political participation, Urban Affairs Review,
42: 410-422.
Marwell, N. P. (2004) Privatizing the welfare state: nonprofit community-based
organizations as political actors, American Sociological Review, 69(2): 265-291.
Mikkelsen, M. (2006) Policy network analysis as a strategic tool for the voluntary
sector, Policy Studies, 27(1): 17-26.
Morial, M. H. (2004) Redefining
devolution, Harvard Journal of African
American
Public Policy.
O’Connell, B. (1996) Guest editorial: A major transfer of government responsibility
to
voluntary organizations? Proceed with caution, Public Administration
Review, 56(3): 222-225.
Streck, C. (2001) Global public policy networks, international organizations, and
international
governance, in Heinrich Boll-Stiftung (ed.): The Road to Earth
Streck, C. (2002) Global public
policy networks as coalitions for change, Global
Environmental Governance: Options & Opportunities, eds D. Esty and M.
Ivanova,
networks,
Social Policy Journal of
Appendix A
Nonprofit Leader Interview
Name and Title____________________________________________________
Organization______________________________________________________
- How many times in the past 12 months
have you, a board member, or someone else in a leadership role met with a
policymaker in an advocacy role for your organization? (F)
(1) 0-4 times (2) 5-9 times (3)
10-14 times (4) 15+
times
36.4 % 36.4% 9.1% 18.2%
- How many times in the past 12 months
have you, a board member, or someone else in a leadership role met with
the county administrator in an advocacy role for your organization? (F)
(1) 0-4 times (2) 5-9 times (3)
10-14 times (4) 15+
times
63.6% 27.3% 0% 9.1%
- Which local elected officials do you
feel are the most responsive to your organization’s needs? (R) (F)
Question designed to find trends; Deke
Copenhaver most frequently identified
- Since you have been affiliated with
this organization, approximately how many policy decisions can be linked
to the advocacy efforts of your organization? Which ones? (F)
(1) Respondent named 0 decisions 9.1%
(2) Respondent named 1-3 decisions 81.8%
(3) Respondent named 4+ decisions 9.1%
- How involved is the government in the
day-to-day operations of your organization? (F)
(1) Not at all involved 45.5% (2) Somewhat
involved 36.4%
(3) Involved 18.2% (4) Very involved 0%
- How would you describe your
organization’s relationship with
(1) Respondent gave positive description 72.7%
(2) Respondent gave negative description 9.1%
(3) Respondent indicated no relationship 18.2%
- How would describe your organization’s
relationship with the county administrator? (R)
(1) Respondent gave positive description 81.8%
(2) Respondent gave negative description 0%
(3) Respondent indicated no relationship 18.2%
- How would you rate the overall
effectiveness of your organization’s advocacy efforts with the local
government? (INF)
(1) Not at all effective 0% (2) Somewhat
effective 54.5%
(3) Effective 9.1% (4)
Very effective 36.4%
- How influential do you feel your organization
is in shaping public opinion in the CSRA? (INF)
(1) Not at all influential 0% (2) Somewhat
influential 54.5%
(3) Influential 27.3% (4)
Very influential 18.2%
- How long has your organization been
serving this community? (D)
(1) 0-10 years 18.2% (2) 11-19 years 18.2%
(3) 20-29 years 18.2% (4) 30+
years 45.5%
31.1
years (mean)
- Who is currently on your
organization’s board of directors? (D)
Question designed to find trends
- Do you feel that the board members are
effective advocates for your organization? (INF)
(1) Not at all effective 0% (2) Somewhat
effective 18.2%
(3) Effective 45.5% (4)
Very effective 36.4%
- What was your approximate annual
budget for the last fiscal year? (D)
(1) Below $100,000 18.2% (2)
$100,001- $499,999 27.3%
(3) $500,000- $1,000,000 18.2% (4) Above
$1,000,000 27.3%
$796,239
(mean)
- What demographic(s) of the population
does your organization primarily serve? (D)
Question designed to find trends
- How many clients/citizens does your
organization serve annually? (D)
(1) Under 10,000 36.4% (2) 10,000-49,999 9.1%
(3) 50,000-99,999 9.1% (4) 100,000+ 45.5%
90,806
(mean)
- What is the size of the membership of
your organization? (D)
(1) No membership 27.3% (2) 1-499 members 45.5%
(3) 500- 999 members 18.2% (4) 1,000+ members 9.1%
451.7
(mean)
Key: (F)- questions regarding frequency of contact/communication
(R)- questions regarding perceptions of relationship
(INF)- questions regarding perceptions of influence
(D)- questions regarding demographic information of the organization
Appendix B
Elected Official Interview
Name and
Title__________________________________________________________
Governing Body_________________________________________________________
- How many times in the past 12 months
have you been contacted by a representative of a nonprofit organization
advocating for their organization? (F)
(1) 0-4 times (2) 5-9 times (3)
10-14 times (4) 15+
times
100%
- How often do you seek out the opinion of nonprofit leaders when making policy decisions? (F)
(1) Not often (2) Sometimes 50%
(3) Often 25% (4) Most
of the time25%
- Which nonprofit organizations do you work with the most? (F) (R)
Question
designed to find trends; Half of the respondents mentioned larger, well
established organizations like the Salvation Army and United Way; Three of the
four specifically listed Richmond County Communities in Schools
- Since you have been in office,
approximately how often do you make policy decisions based on the advocacy
efforts of a nonprofit? Examples? (F)
(1) Respondent named 0 decisions
(2) Respondent named 1-3 decisions 50%
(3) Respondent named 4+ decisions 50%
- How would you describe your
relationship with the CSRA’s nonprofit community? (R)
(1) Respondent gave positive description 100%
(2) Respondent gave negative description
(3) Respondent indicated no relationship
- How would you describe the
Assembly’s/Commission’s relationship with the CSRA’s nonprofit community? (R)
(1) Respondent gave positive description 75%
(2) Respondent gave negative description
(3) Respondent indicated no relationship 25%
- How influential are local nonprofits
in your policy decision making process? (INF)
(1) Not at all influential 25% (2) Somewhat
influential 25%
(3) Influential 25% (4) Very influential 25%
- How influential are local nonprofits
in the overall policymaking process in the Assembly/Commission? (INF)
(1) Not at all influential (2) Somewhat influential 75%
(3) Influential 25% (4) Very influential
- How influential do you feel nonprofit
organizations are in shaping public opinion in CSRA? (INF)
(1) Not at all influential (2) Somewhat influential 50%
(3) Influential 25% (4)
Very influential 25%
- How long have you been in office? (D)
(1) Less than 1 year (2)
1-3 years 75%
(3) 3-5 years (4) More than 5 years 25%
Key: (F)- questions regarding frequency of contact/communication
(R)- questions regarding perceptions of relationship
(INF)- questions regarding perceptions of influence
(D)- questions regarding demographic information of the elected official
Appendix C
Name_________________________________________________________________
Governing Body_________________________________________________________
- How many times in the past 12 months
have you been contacted by a representative of a nonprofit organization
advocating for their organization? (F)
(1) 0-4 times (2) 5-9 times (3)
10-14 times (4) 15+ times
- How often do you seek out the opinion of nonprofit leaders when making administrative decisions? (F)
(1) Not often (2) Sometimes
(3) Often (4) Most of the time
- Which nonprofit organizations do you work with the most? (F) (R)
Question
designed to find trends; Identified
“healthcare and housing” organizations
- Since you have been in the position,
approximately how often do you make administrative decisions based on the
advocacy efforts of a nonprofit? Examples? (F)
(1) Respondent named 0 decisions
(2) Respondent named 1-3 decisions
(3) Respondent named 4+ decisions
- How would you describe your
relationship with the CSRA’s nonprofit community? (R)
(1) Respondent gave positive
description
(2) Respondent gave negative description
(3) Respondent indicated no relationship
- How influential are local nonprofits
in your decision making process? (INF)
(1) Not at all influential (2)
Somewhat influential
(3) Influential (4) Very influential
- How influential do you feel nonprofit
organizations are in shaping public opinion in CSRA? (INF)
(1) Not at all influential (2) Somewhat influential
(3) Influential (4)
Very influential
- How long have you been county
administrator? (D)
4 years
Key: (F)- questions regarding frequency of contact/communication
(R)- questions regarding perceptions of relationship
(INF)- questions regarding perceptions of influence
(D)- questions regarding demographic information of the county administrator