Advertisement

Professional Performances on a Well-Constructed Stage: The Case of an Institutionalized Advocacy Organization

  • Mirella Landriscina

As homelessness emerged as a major social problem in the 1980s, grassroots activists and anti-poverty advocates clamored for both structural change and immediate aid for those experiencing homelessness (Imig 1996; Wright 1997; Hopper 2003). Only the latter demand was met: federal and local governments boosted emergency aid systems, leading to the expansion and institutionalization of homeless shelter and service-providing organizations across the country (Wright et al., 1998). Today, many of these contracted nonprofit organizations continue to describe themselves as advocacy organizations that speak on behalf of homeless people and work to end homelessness. I use qualitative methods to investigate the nature of homeless advocacy by homeless service providers and to explore the following questions: What role can institutionalized social movement organizations play in the political arena? What effect does a nonprofit organization’s dependence on public sector funding have on its mandate to do strong advocacy?

Keywords

Social Movement Business Group City Council Business Community Homeless People 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brulle, R. J. (2000). Agency, democracy, and nature: The U.S. environmental movement from a critical theory perspective. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chaves, M., Stephens L., & Galaskiewiecz, J. (2004). Does government funding suppress nonprofits’ political activity? American Sociological Review 69, 292–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daughen, J. R. (1990, February). City softens ‘tough’ stance: Won’t force homeless off vents. Philadelphia Daily News, p. 4.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, M. (1990). City of quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (1999). Social movements: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Giugni, M., & Passy, F. (1998). Contentious politics in complex societies: New social movements between conflict and cooperation. In M. Guigni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.). From contention to democracy (pp. 81–107). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  9. Handler, J. F. (1996). Down from bureaucracy: The ambiguity of privatization and empowerment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87–124). Washington DC: AEI.Google Scholar
  11. Helfgot, J. H. (1981). Professional reforming: Mobilization for youth and the failure of social science. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  12. Hinkelman, M. (2002). Pushy panhandlers proliferating: Aggressive beggars threaten economic vitality of Center City. Philadelphia Daily News, May 13.Google Scholar
  13. Hopper, K. (2003). Reckoning with homelessness. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Imig, D. R. (1996). Poverty and power: The political representations of poor Americans. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  15. Katzenstein, M. F. (1998). Faithful and fearless. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kramer, R. M. (1994). Voluntary agencies and the contract culture: ‘Dream or nightmare?’ Social Service Review, 68, 33–60.Google Scholar
  17. Lichterman, P. (2005). Risking inconvenience: Observations on ethnography. Political Sociology: States, Power, and Societies, 11, 1–3.Google Scholar
  18. Loeb, V. (1988, March 6). The shelter fiasco. The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. 16.Google Scholar
  19. Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Meyer, D. S., & Tarrow, S. (1998). A movement society: Contentious politics for a new century. In D. S. Meyer and S. Tarrow (Eds.), The social movement society: Contentious politics for a new century (pp. 1–28). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  21. Michels, R. (1962). Political parties. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (1991, November). Go directly to jail: A report analyzing local anti-homeless ordinances.Google Scholar
  23. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (1993, December). The right to remain nowhere: A report on anti-homeless laws and litigation in 16 United States cities.Google Scholar
  24. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (1994, December). No homeless people allowed: A report on anti-homeless laws, litigation and alternatives in 49 United States cities.Google Scholar
  25. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (1996, December). Mean sweeps: A report on anti-homeless laws, litigation and alternatives in 50 United States cities.Google Scholar
  26. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (1999, January). Mean sweeps: A report on anti-homeless laws, litigation and alternatives in 50 United States cities.Google Scholar
  27. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (2002, January). Illegal to be homeless: The criminalization of homelessness in the United States.Google Scholar
  28. Nyland, J. (1995). Issue networks and nonprofit organizations. Policy Studies Review, 14, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  30. Philadelphia Inquirer. (1988, March 6). Is the city too generous sheltering its homeless? p. C06.Google Scholar
  31. Philadelphia Inquirer. (1989a, July 30). Enough’s enough. p. D6.Google Scholar
  32. Philadelphia Inquirer. (1989b, October 18). Wake-up call. p. 18.Google Scholar
  33. Philadelphia Inquirer. (1989c, November 30). The homeless. (Yes, again). p. A20.Google Scholar
  34. Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1977). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed, how they fail. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  35. Pruijt, H. (2003). Is the institutionalization of urban movements inevitable? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27, 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosenberg, A. S. (1994). City gets $8 million grant for service to homeless. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. B02.Google Scholar
  37. Rucht, D. (1999). Linking organization and mobilization: Michels’s iron law of oligarchy reconsidered. Mobilization: An International Journal, 4, 151–169.Google Scholar
  38. Salamon, L. M. (1987). Partners in public service: The scope and theory of government-nonprofit relations. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 99–17). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, S. R. (2001). Nonprofit organizations in urban politics and policy. Policy Studies Review 18, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
  41. Stoner, M. R. (1995). The civil rights of homeless people: Law, social policy, and social work practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tarrow, S. (1998a). Social protest and policy reform: May 1968 and the Loi D’Orientation in France. In M. Guigni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.), From contention to democracy (pp. 31–56). New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  45. Tarrow, S. (1998b). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics, 2d ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Tilly, C. (1999). Conclusion: From interactions to outcomes in social movements. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.), How social movements matter (pp. 253–270). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wolch, J. R. (1990). The shadow state: Government and voluntary sector in transition. New York: The Foundation Center.Google Scholar
  48. Wolch, J., & Dear, M. (1993). Malign neglect. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Wright, T. (1997). Out of place: Homeless mobilizations, subcities, and contested landscapes. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wright, J. D., Rubin, B.A., & Devine, J.A. (1998). Beside the golden door: Policy, politics, and the homeless. New York: The Foundation Center.Google Scholar
  51. Zald, M. N., & Garner, R. A. (1987). Social movement organizations: Growth, decay and change. In M. N. Zald, & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), Social Movements in an organizational society (pp. 121–141). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  52. Zukin, S. (1991). Scapes of power: From Detroit to Disney World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirella Landriscina
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesSt. Joseph's CollegeBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations