Browsing by Subject "Advocacy"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Open Access
A CASE STUDY OF GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY AND THE SOCIOPOLITICAL PROCESS: AUTHORIZATION OF PROCESSOR QUOTA SHARES IN THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
(2003) Hunt, Stephanie L
Special interest groups are trying to change language in the Magnuson-Steven Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) to allow fishery management councils to create and allocate processor quota (PQ). This limited entry tool is a companion to Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) which allocate harvesting rights to individual fishermen or vessel owners. Authorizing PQ would allow councils to give seafood companies exclusive buying rights and would require fishermen to sell their catch to the limited number of buyers holding PQ shares. A grassroots advocacy campaign opposing PQ prevented the 107th Congress from including controversial PQ language in MSFCMA reauthorization. Employing the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association (CCCHFA) as a case study, I will analyze how strategies of coalition building, constituent mobilization, and media contact were effectively applied in this campaign. Likewise, strategies to activate members of Congress played a prominent role in the effort. The CCCHFA led 225 visits to Congressional offices, trained more than 17 commercial fishermen in advocacy techniques, generated press coverage on both coasts, and produced a hard-hitting advocacy video that was distributed to all 535 members of Congress. To accomplish future goals, the anti-PQ campaign requires a long-term commitment with flexible goals and strategies, which allow the CCCHFA to take advantage of the changing sociopolitical climate. Given its limited resources, the organization must use time efficiently and continue to build upon past victories.
Open Access
Building Better Communities: Why Do Community Foundations Engage in Advocacy?
(2020-05-27) Muse, Colleen
Executive Summary Community foundations are public charities that serve a specific location or geography. They are distinct from private foundations and therefore, have different legal protections and rights, including the legal right to lobby government. However, traditional community foundation activities are apolitical: soliciting donations and awarding funds to nonprofit partners. Some community foundations have begun to step outside the traditional community foundation role to use advocacy and lobbying to advance their missions. Staff realize that foundation giving, though important, cannot fully meet the ever-growing challenges in their communities. Advocacy with government, the public, and private businesses can multiply the impact of community foundation discretionary spending and work on solving the root causes of problems in their communities. Specifically, advocacy work can raise awareness of a community foundation and its mission, attract favorable media attention, expand government investment in important programs, mobilize the community to act on an issue, and benefit a broader number of community members than a single direct service program.1 In light of this context, Triangle Community Foundation wished to understand the following policy question: Why do some community foundations decide they should be involved in social policy advocacy? What strategies or characteristics make them effective? To answer this, I interviewed leaders of 13 community foundations across the nation that conduct some form of advocacy work. The interviews revealed how the community foundation sector uses advocacy to accomplish their goals, their divergent strategies, and the lessons that other community foundations could use to build their own advocacy capacities. Community foundation interviews emphasized the positive impact that advocacy work has had in their communities. For example, the interviewed foundations noted that their advocacy work resulted in the passage of new statewide bills, changed local regulations, stopped harmful city council legislation, and directed more state funding to their communities. Other key findings from the interviews were the following: Advocacy can be slow and labor-intensive, but the impact can be outsized for the effort; There are multiple ways to be effective in the advocacy space; Many community foundations used the same common strategy as the backbone of their advocacy plan; It is important to tailor specific advocacy strategies to the political context, organizational capacity, and specific issue of interest; Policies and procedures improve transparency and effectiveness of advocacy; Risks of advocacy can be managed; and Some legal protections are required to conduct advocacy. Interviewees advised community foundations that wish to engage in advocacy to consider the type of advocacy role they are comfortable playing in their community, the issues that are critical to their region, the policies and procedures needed, and how they will measure success. Each foundation should consider how its relationship-building and advocacy activities fit into their unique political context. This paper explores the methods, strategies, and philosophy of community foundations that advocate for social policy change. Further areas of research could explore the cost-effectiveness and success rate of community foundation advocacy efforts.
Open Access
Perceptions of Sharks: Identifying Photograph Preferences for Shark Conservation Advocacy
(2013-04-25) Duplanty, Ashley E
American perceptions of sharks are changing. There has been a shift over several decades from the view of sharks as dangerous predators to animals in need of conservation. Simultaneously, shark conservation policies in the United States have developed. Advocacy organizations have been instrumental in educating and eliciting the interest of the American public about sharks and the need for conservation. Despite the shift in American perceptions of sharks, these animals still receive a lot of negative attention in the media. For this reason advocacy organizations need to select photographs of sharks to present to the American public with care. Using photographs from the nonprofit organization Shark Savers, I conducted interviews and surveys to examine the differences in preferences for photographs of sharks between Duke University Marine Lab students and the general public of Beaufort, North Carolina. The purpose of this study is to identify shark photograph preferences in order to inform advocacy groups for shark conservation campaigns. I investigated four categories of photographs: sharks with divers, photographs with multiple sharks, the location of the shark in the ocean, and dead sharks. The majority of the Duke University Marine Lab students did not have a preference for a diver in a photograph or had a preference for no diver. Most of the Beaufort participants did prefer to see a diver. The majority of the Marine Lab students and the Beaufort participants did not have a preference for the number of sharks in a photograph. Most participants in both sample groups had a preference for the location of shark: seeing a shark near the ocean floor. The majority of all participants stated it would be more effective for them to see a paring of live and dead sharks in an advocacy campaign, rather than only live sharks or only dead sharks.