No abstract

Nonprofit scholars have developed a rich literature on nonprofit advocacy. While the literature is rich, however, gaps remain in our collective knowledge, especially regarding specific sectors of nonprofit human service organizations. Here, we apply existing theory on advocacy by human service organizations to an important subset of the nonprofit community, that being immigrant-serving organizations (ISOs). Most prior research on nonprofit advocacy has not focused on politically polarized issues, such as contemporary immigration policy. Using a nationwide survey of ISOs, we find that unlike other types of human service organizations, the majority of ISOs do engage in at least some forms of policy advocacy. However, those that report using the H-election status on their Form 990s are significantly more likely to engage in advocacy and do so to a wide variety of policymakers, including legislators, chief executives, and even local law enforcement agencies. H-election groups are also more likely to perceive their advocacy activities as effective. These findings add to the evolving knowledge on when and how human service groups seek policy change for marginalized groups.

Relatively little research has examined the role of immigrant-serving organizations (ISOs) as policy advocates, and virtually no studies have sought to empirically determine whether ISOs shape local policy implementation decisions. Here we study the relationship between ISOs and the policy decisions of sheriff offices, which oversee county jails. Sheriff offices are vital to implementing federal immigration enforcement programs. We determine whether the presence of ISOs predicts sheriff office cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Using a sample of 630 sheriff offices that responded to a national U.S. Bureau of Justice survey, we find the concentration of ISOs registered to provide pro bono legal aid in immigration court does predict sheriff office cooperation. The presence of these legal-aid nonprofits predicts whether sheriff offices will adopt anti-detainer (or ‘sanctuary’) policies. Additionally, these legal-aid nonprofits also correspond to fewer immigration background checks submitted to ICE from county jails.

Some politicians employ harsh rhetoric demanding that government deny public services such as food, housing, and medical care to immigrants. While nonprofits assist immigrants in this regard, their work is sustainable only if private donors support them. Using a survey experiment, this article examines whether donors' willingness to support a charity depends on the legal status of its beneficiaries, and the region from which they have come. We find that, in relation to a charity that serves low‐income families (control group), donors are less willing to support a charity serving immigrants, but the region from which beneficiaries emigrated is irrelevant. Donor willingness diminishes substantially when beneficiaries are undocumented or face deportation. While shared ethnicity between donors and beneficiaries does not increase charitable support, bilingualism does. In addition, support for the charity rises substantially among Latinx donors who were born outside the US and do not speak English at home.

No abstract