501(c)地位在参与石油和天然气政策辩论的环境非营利组织中的意义

IF 1.1 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs Pub Date : 2022-07-05 DOI:10.20899/jpna.8.2.217-238
J. Kagan
{"title":"501(c)地位在参与石油和天然气政策辩论的环境非营利组织中的意义","authors":"J. Kagan","doi":"10.20899/jpna.8.2.217-238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the advocacy activities of 30 environmental nonprofits engaged in oil and gas policy debates. Because 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted or prohibited from engaging in certain types of advocacy, the literature typically considers 501(c)(3) organizations service providers and 501(c)(4)s advocacy organizations. This study looks at whether this dichotomy holds among a group of organizations that actively advocates and examines the implications of 501(c) status. Data come from surveys of organizations active in hydraulic fracturing policy debates, along with organizations’ Form 990s and websites. Results obtained through statistical analyses and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) indicate that the environmental nonprofits actively advocate and report doing so relatively effectively. Furthermore, this research uncovers new patterns in advocacy tactics and the organizations that use them by analyzing advocacy participation and effectiveness separately and through QCA.","PeriodicalId":43150,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Significance of 501(c) Status Among Environmental Nonprofits Engaged in Oil and Gas Policy Debates\",\"authors\":\"J. Kagan\",\"doi\":\"10.20899/jpna.8.2.217-238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines the advocacy activities of 30 environmental nonprofits engaged in oil and gas policy debates. Because 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted or prohibited from engaging in certain types of advocacy, the literature typically considers 501(c)(3) organizations service providers and 501(c)(4)s advocacy organizations. This study looks at whether this dichotomy holds among a group of organizations that actively advocates and examines the implications of 501(c) status. Data come from surveys of organizations active in hydraulic fracturing policy debates, along with organizations’ Form 990s and websites. Results obtained through statistical analyses and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) indicate that the environmental nonprofits actively advocate and report doing so relatively effectively. Furthermore, this research uncovers new patterns in advocacy tactics and the organizations that use them by analyzing advocacy participation and effectiveness separately and through QCA.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.8.2.217-238\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.8.2.217-238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了30个参与石油和天然气政策辩论的环保非营利组织的倡导活动。由于501(c)(3)组织被限制或禁止从事某些类型的宣传活动,因此文献通常考虑501(c。这项研究着眼于这种二分法是否适用于积极倡导和审查501(c)地位影响的组织群体。数据来自对积极参与水力压裂政策辩论的组织的调查,以及组织的990表格和网站。通过统计分析和定性比较分析(QCA)获得的结果表明,环境非营利组织积极倡导和报告这样做相对有效。此外,本研究通过分别分析倡导参与度和有效性,并通过QCA,揭示了倡导策略的新模式以及使用这些策略的组织。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Significance of 501(c) Status Among Environmental Nonprofits Engaged in Oil and Gas Policy Debates
This paper examines the advocacy activities of 30 environmental nonprofits engaged in oil and gas policy debates. Because 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted or prohibited from engaging in certain types of advocacy, the literature typically considers 501(c)(3) organizations service providers and 501(c)(4)s advocacy organizations. This study looks at whether this dichotomy holds among a group of organizations that actively advocates and examines the implications of 501(c) status. Data come from surveys of organizations active in hydraulic fracturing policy debates, along with organizations’ Form 990s and websites. Results obtained through statistical analyses and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) indicate that the environmental nonprofits actively advocate and report doing so relatively effectively. Furthermore, this research uncovers new patterns in advocacy tactics and the organizations that use them by analyzing advocacy participation and effectiveness separately and through QCA.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Empowerment or Exploitation? Ethical Engagement of Survivor Leaders in Anti-Trafficking Organizations Defining and Measuring Economic Development: A Literature Review and Outlook Unpacking the Volunteer Experience: The Influence of Volunteer Management on Retention and Promotion of the Organization Front Matter #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) Was Never About Officer Race
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1