Journal of Policy Practice, 9:220–239, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1558-8742 print/1558-8750 online DOI: 10.1080/15588742.2010.489037 Journal of Policy Practice Are Social Work Advocacy Groups Using Web 2.0 Effectively? HEATHER R. EDWARDS and RICHARD HOEFER University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas PAGE 220 This article describes social work advocacy efforts, states what Web 2.0 technology has to offer social work advocacy, and presents original research on the current levels of Web 2.0 use on social work advocacy organization Web sites. This study employed a content analysis of a purposive sample of social work advocacy organization Web sites (N = 63). The researchers created a data collection instrument containing items related to communicating with policy makers, resource gathering, information, and use of specific Web 2.0 technologies. Findings reveal that social work organizations make good use of their Web sites for some advocacy activities, and grossly underutilize the Web forum for others. Furthermore, social work organizations do not use Web 2.0 often for advocacy. Barriers impeding Web 2.0 use and methods to overcome such barriers are also discussed. Implications for future social work education, practice, and research follow. KEYWORDS advocacy, Web 2.0, Internet advocacy, social work advocacy, policy practice The Code of Ethics for the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) states that social workers “pursue social change” and “challenge injustice” (NASW, 2008). Advocacy aimed at informing the policy process serves as a key method that social workers use to fulfill this mission (Hoefer, 2006; Jackson-Elmoore, 2005). Social work advocates must take advantage of every advocacy tactic available to the greatest extent possible to ensure timely policy change for vulnerable populations. PAGE 221 Advocacy tactics have been divided into “inside” and “outside” (Hoefer, 2001, 2005; Walker, 1993). Inside tactics are those that groups use to work directly with decision makers, such as lobbying. Outside tactics are employed by interest group members or the public to put pressure on decision makers. The Internet, as originally designed (Web 1.0), has been effectively used as an outside tactic to disseminate information from interest group leaders to decision makers and members of the public. Thus, the Web is a tool advocates can use to keep their message available at all times. In recent years, the Internet has moved from being a one-way highway to a more interactive entity, called Web 2.0. This second generation of Web site tools expands human services organizations’ advocacy efforts well beyond information dissemination. Through social media applications such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, videocasts, social networking, etc., human service organizations can promote information sharing, participatory knowledge generation, and collaboration building (Fine, 2007; McNutt, 2008; McNutt & Menon, 2008; Sche.

1. Journal of Policy Practice, 9:220–239, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1558-8742 print/1558-8750 online
DOI: 10.1080/15588742.2010.489037
Journal of Policy Practice
Are Social Work Advocacy Groups Using Web 2.0 Effectively?
HEATHER R. EDWARDS and RICHARD HOEFER
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas
PAGE 220
This article describes social work advocacy efforts, states what
Web 2.0 technology has to offer social work advocacy, and
presents original research on the current levels of Web 2.0 use
on social work advocacy organization Web sites. This study
employed a content analysis of a purposive sample of social
work advocacy organization Web sites (N = 63). The
researchers created a data collection instrument containing
items related to communicating with policy makers, resource
gathering, information, and use of specific Web 2.0
technologies. Findings reveal that social work organizations
make good use of their Web sites for some advocacy activities,
and grossly underutilize the Web forum for others. Furthermore,
social work organizations do not use Web 2.0 often for
advocacy. Barriers impeding Web 2.0 use and methods to
overcome such barriers are also discussed. Implications for
future social work education, practice, and research follow.
KEYWORDS advocacy, Web 2.0, Internet advocacy, social
work advocacy, policy practice
The Code of Ethics for the National Association of Social
Workers (NASW) states that social workers “pursue social
change” and “challenge injustice” (NASW, 2008). Advocacy
aimed at informing the policy process serves as a key method

2. that social workers use to fulfill this mission (Hoefer, 2006;
Jackson-Elmoore, 2005). Social work advocates must take
advantage of every advocacy tactic available to the greatest
extent possible to ensure timely policy change for vulnerable
populations.
PAGE 221
Advocacy tactics have been divided into “inside” and “outside”
(Hoefer, 2001, 2005; Walker, 1993). Inside tactics are those that
groups use to work directly with decision makers, such as
lobbying. Outside tactics are employed by interest group
members or the public to put pressure on decision makers. The
Internet, as originally designed (Web 1.0), has been effectively
used as an outside tactic to disseminate information from
interest group leaders to decision makers and members of the
public. Thus, the Web is a tool advocates can use to keep their
message available at all times. In recent years, the Internet has
moved from being a one-way highway to a more interactive
entity, called Web 2.0. This second generation of Web site tools
expands human services organizations’ advocacy efforts well
beyond information dissemination. Through social media
applications such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, videocasts, social
networking, etc., human service organizations can promote
information sharing, participatory knowledge generation, and
collaboration building (Fine, 2007; McNutt, 2008; McNutt &
Menon, 2008; Schembri, 2008). This article describes social
work advocacy efforts, states what Web 2.0 Web sites have to
offer social work advocacy, and presents original research on
the current levels of Web 2.0 use on social work advocacy
organization Web sites. Next, the article presents an
introduction to barriers impeding Web 2.0 use and methods to
overcome such barriers. Implications for social work education,
practice, and research follow.
SOCIAL WORK ADVOCACY
Social workers are uniquely positioned to influence policy
through advocacy practice. According to Dunlop and Fawcett

3. (2008, p. 143) “advocacy practice includes the following social
work skills: 1) getting issues on the public agenda; 2) social
marketing; 3) policy-related research to influence decision
makers; 4) preparation of briefs and proposals; and 5) reforming
internal program operations.” In practicing these skills, social
workers bring to bear an intimate knowledge of social welfare
issues and systems. Advocacy efforts are also supported by
social workers’ ability to build consensus, diffuse conflict, and
build on strengths to address system weaknesses. Despite the
ethical mandate and potential for effective advocacy, social
work organizations struggle with several limitations. Scanlon
(2006) conducted a survey of executive directors from 56
NASW chapters to find that these agencies perceived
themselves as having limited effectiveness. In addition, the
respondents pointed to low staffing levels as a barrier to
engagement in advocacy work. In other words, there were so
few chapter staff members that little time was available to
perform more than essential chapter operation duties.
Furthermore, the directors noted difficulty in getting sufficient
input from consumers and chapter members (Scanlon, 2006).
PAGE 222
As a result, chapter leaders faced a decision between
eliminating advocacy efforts and moving ahead without member
input. The former course of action would mean ignoring the
professional mandate for promotion of social justice. The latter
would neglect the ethical principle regarding the importance of
human relationships and engaging others in the helping process
(NASW, 2008). The profession must actively and continually
support advocacy efforts because the persistent problems of
vulnerable populations do not recede just because social
workers struggle to find the resources to address them. Several
scholars have identified strategies that social work agencies
should employ to coordinate effective advocacy efforts;
promote communication with decision makers, gather resources,
and manage information. The following sections discuss
approaches in each of these areas.

4. Communication with Decision Makers
In order for decision makers to act on advocate preferences,
advocates must communicate their policy preferences to
decision makers. This can be a daunting and mysterious process
for social workers with little or no advocacy experience. Social
work advocacy organizations can address this knowledge gap by
providing instructions for locating one’s elected representative,
sharing contact information for elected officials, presenting
guidance for how to contact elected officials, and supplying
templates to help format effective communications. The
guidance will likely increase the probability that advocate
correspondence will reach decision makers and that the
information will be formatted to garner attention. Furthermore,
an organization can increase individuals’ propensity to reach
out to public officials by encouraging its members to make
contact. A study of the use of the Internet to communicate with
members of Congress conducted by the Congressional
Management Foundation found that 84% of survey respondents
who had contacted their elected representative were asked to do
so by an interest organization (Goldschmidt & Ochreiter, 2008).
Communications with decision makers serve as a very important
factor in shaping social welfare policy (Zhou, Chan, & Peng,
2008). In social welfare policy discourse, the vulnerable
populations served by the social work profession tend to have
lobbying efforts that are less powerful than the interests of
tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, prison
management entities, and other groups. As a result, the potential
for policy makers to make decisions based on evidence
presented by powerful interests is high. In addition, social
welfare advocates and business lobbyists compete for the
attention of the same elected officials. Social workers must use
interactions with policy makers to furnish information in a
compelling manner that could overcome this disadvantage and
sway decisions (Williams, Foxman, & Saraswat, 2007).
PAGE 223
Resource Management

5. In today’s tough economic times, greater competition exists
among advocacy organizations for fiscal support. As a result,
social work organizations are challenged with making a
stronger, more creative, and more persuasive case. These
entities seek donations from individuals, businesses, other
interest groups, and so on. In addition to monetary resources,
organizations also need political capital. Petition drives provide
a way to demonstrate the political support of an organization
(Miller, 2009). Such an approach is effective in persuading
policy makers that their position on an issue could affect their
chances for re-election.
Information Sharing
Information is a primary tool used in advocacy efforts. Data
can shift existing beliefs, motivate and mobilize supporters, and
identify and define problems (Rich, 2001). For instance,
providing issue information and summaries of proposed
legislation to social workers alerts them regarding existence of
problems and proposed solutions. Such action can serve to
energize workers. Organizations can then benefit from and build
upon this momentum by creating or identifying interventions for
interested parties to implement. This direction prevents a loss of
contributions from those who desperately want to do something
but who do not know what to do. The degree to which
organizations collect information from Web site users for
advocacy purposes also influences outcomes. For instance,
practitioners can provide compelling anecdotes that can
persuade decision makers. Advocates can also use Web sites to
exchange political information with one another. This could
yield a more informed advocacy force, sharing of political
resources, or collaboration on shared political agendas. Such a
decentralized approach to knowledge building recognizes the
inherent wealth of information and agency of social workers.
Thackeray, Neiger, Hanson, & McKenzie (2008, p. 339)
demonstrated the logic in this type of approach by stating,
“nobody knows everything, but everybody knows something.”

6. WEB 2.0
Web 2.0, also called social media, facilitates decentralized
knowledge building. It is a relatively recently developed set of
Web-based technologies that allows for a high level of frequent
interaction in multiple web environments between and among
groups of people. Web 2.0 is an advancement of the World Wide
Web or Web 1.0. One can understand the difference between
Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 by thinking of Web 1.0 as read only.
People are limited to reading information from Web 1.0 Web
sites. Web 2.0, on the other hand,
PAGE 224
has read and write capabilities. As a result, Web 2.0 site users
can read information and contribute information to Web 2.0
components (Imperatore, 2009; MacManus, 2009). Some
examples of Web 2.0 technology include blogs, wikis, RSS
feeds, video sharing, social networking Web sites, social
bookmarking, page-sharing features, and so on. Many of these
technologies allow real-time updates that enable users to access
the most recent information (MacManus, 2009). Viral
distribution is another valuable capability of Web 2.0
technology (Thackeray et al., 2008). When something “goes
viral”, it spreads very quickly to a large number of viewers.
Blogs
Blogs allow authors to post articles, thoughts, memoirs, or any
other text publicly. Viewers of these web-based logs can usually
comment on the content contained within. Discussion can then
ensue between the author and readers and among readers
(Dunlop & Fawcett, 2008). Blogger.com, a Web site owned by
Google, provides a platform that allows individuals to create
free blogs (http://www.blogger.com). Another source of free
blogging, Wordpress, is available at www.wordpress.com.
RSS Feeds
Rich Site Summary (RSS) feeds deliver regularly changing
Web content directly to the RSS feed subscriber
(http://www.whatisrss.com/). RSS feeds allow Web users to

7. subscribe to a Web component like a blog, Google search, or a
Web page, and get automated messages about updates.
Individuals can also create an RSS feed through a search
provider like Google. This subscription will send an alert to the
user with links to every Webpage (newspaper stories, blogs,
etc.) that added the search term in the past 24 hours.
Wikis
Wikis are Web sites that allow subscribed users to update the
content on the Web site. This feature facilitates collaborative
writing. In a wiki, one person will draft text, and any subscriber
can edit it by adding, deleting, or reorganizing
(http://www.techterms.com). Wikipedia (http://www.
wikipedia.com) is a well-known example of a wiki.
Podcasting
Web sites also have various audio and video-sharing features.
Podcasting feeds work similarly to RSS feeds. They deliver
links to digital audio, video,
PAGE 225
or combined audio/video files instead of text. These podcasts
can be played on a portable device like an iPod or on a
computer. Sources of free and feebased podcasts include
National Public Radio (http://www.npr.org), Podcasts.com
(http://www.podcasts.com), and the music purchase and
download site, itunes (http://www.itunes.com).
Video Sharing
Web 2.0 has some additional social components. Video sharing
sites such as YouTube (http://www.youtube.com) allow
subscribed users to upload video content. The video is then
freely available to anyone who accesses the site (Dunlop &
Fawcett, 2008). YouTube videos played a noticeable role in the
2008 elections. In the spring of 2008, the Barack Obama
Campaign had uploaded 788 videos and the Hilary Clinton
Campaign had uploaded 298. One of Barack Obama’s videos
had been viewed 1.32 million times (Teinowitz, 2008).
Social Networking

8. Social networking sites such as LinkedIn
(http://www.LinkedIn.com), Twitter (http://www.twitter.com),
and Facebook (http://www.facebook.com) allow people to
connect electronically with others. Once connected, these
friends can view each other’s personal information, user
generated updates, pictures, and more (Dunlop & Fawcett,
2008). One of the most touted features of these sites is the
ability for users to identify friends of friends with whom to
network.
Social Bookmarking
Social bookmarking serves as an additional social tool. This
feature allows subscribed users to make note of Web content
that is of interest to them. They store this information using a
social bookmarking site such as Delicious
(http://delicious.com), Digg (http://digg.com), and
StumbleUpon (http://www.stumbleupon.com). The contents of a
user’s social bookmarks can be accessed by anyone or specific
people to whom the bookmark user has given access (Dunlop &
Fawcett, 2008).
WEB ADVOCACY
Advocacy efforts have gained new tools from the use of the
Internet . McNutt (2006) identified four main purposes for Web
advocacy: (1) research and information gathering; (2) public
awareness and education; (3) organizing and coordinating; and
(4) pressure and influence. Specifically, utilization
PAGE 226
of the Internet to influence the policy process can include the
ability to send out mass e-mails for advocacy alerts and Web
sites that allow an easily accessed location for information.
Early efforts in using the Internet have been heavily focused on
the transmission of information from the sender to the user,
with much less emphasis on creating dialogue and two-way
communication (Imperatore, 2009; McNutt, 2008). Many social
work advocates learned to use the early Web tools.

9. Organizations use e-mail distribution lists to share information
with members. Social workers can also visit advocacy
organization Web sites to view information about upcoming
events, summaries of past policy interventions, analysis of
legislation under consideration, directions about communicating
with elected officials, and other political information (Salcido
& Seek, 1992). These mechanisms for information
dissemination use Web 1.0 and they primarily involve
distribution of information from the organization to individuals.
Web 2.0, on the other hand, strives to move beyond
communication between dyads to communal conversations
(Imperatore, 2009; Schembri, 2008). Web 2.0 improves Web
advocacy by widening the available knowledge base from a few
contributors (those who control or own the Web site) to anyone
who comes across the Web site . By facilitating knowledge
sharing and generation online, Web 2.0 components also create
transparency (Cronk, 2007). Furthermore, organizations can use
Web 2.0 technology for effective advocacy efforts that require
little staff time to maintain and that increase access for member
input.
Previous Research
Researchers have conducted several studies about
organizations’ use of Web advocacy and Web 2.0. For instance,
the Overbrook Foundation surveyed its grantees to determine
the degree to which these human rights organizations used Web
2.0 technologies. The study found that most organizations did
not operate beyond Web 1.0. Many of the organizations felt that
gaining the knowledge to shift the technology in their Web sites
was a daunting task. The study also discovered that of those
groups who did use Web 2.0 technology, many were not using it
effectively (Fine, 2007). Williams et al. (2007) compared Web-
based advocacy among for-profit and nonprofit organizations.
Not surprisingly, the study found that for-profit organizations
engaged in significantly more advocacy than nonprofit
organizations. The study also confirmed the positive
relationship between financial resources and the number of

10. advocacy activities. Therefore, human service organizations
with constrained finances must increase their advocacy efforts
in order to have an impact that is comparable with competing
business interests. Finally, the nonprofit organizations engaged
in advocacy
PAGE 227
related to community and charitable issues more than
environment and diversity issues. Suarez (2009) added to the
Web advocacy knowledge base with his investigation of the
degree to which 161 nonprofit organizations in the San
Francisco Bay area included advocacy or civic engagement
information on their Web sites. He found that organization size
and degree of government funding did not influence whether an
organization included advocacy components on their Web site.
On the other hand, the study discovered that organizations with
a focus on environmental issues, human rights issues, and
participation in advocacy were more likely to have advocacy
components on their Web sites (Suarez, 2009). While this work
made a considerable contribution to the knowledge base, it was
limited in that it measured participation in Web site advocacy as
a dichotomous variable.
As a result, it did not generate data about the types and
frequencies of advocacy participation. Similarly, Kenix (2007)
studied 70 nonprofit organization Web sites selected from a
database of nonprofit organizations. Her examination extended
well beyond Web advocacy, and focused on several features
including use of the Internet as a public space for political
dialogue, to facilitate activism, and as a vehicle for fund-
raising. Kenix highlighted evidence based expectations for the
potential for organization Web sites to bolster advocacy efforts.
Unfortunately, she found that this potential is largely
unrealized. Less than 5% of her sample included information
about e-mail groups, had a chat room, or used a discussion
forum. In addition, less than 5% of organizations provided
contact information for elected officials, and no organization
Web sites included an online petition. Furthermore, the study

11. found that 65% of organizations conducted Web-based fund-
raising. Finally, only about 22% of Web sites included
components that allow users to search the site (Kenix, 2007).
These studies espouse the considerable potential of Web
advocacy while demonstrating that nonprofit organizations have
not fully taken advantage of this approach. The study detailed
here contributes to the existing literature through its specific
focus on social work organizations. The studies previously
mentioned included entities focused on particular issues and/or
within a variety of professional backgrounds. This study is also
unique in that it went beyond identifying the presence or
absence of Web 2.0 technology. It assessed the degree to which
the components are used.
METHODS
This study employed a content analysis of a purposive sample
of social work advocacy organization Web sites to determine
how effectively these organizations use Web 2.0 technology
PAGE 228
Sampling
To gather the sample, the researchers conducted two searches
using the Google search engine available at
http://www.google.com. The first search used the search terms
“social work” and “organization,” and the second search used
the terms “social work” and “association.” For each of these
search terms, the researchers reviewed the first 100 results.
From these results, researchers excluded Web sites that did not
include an advocacy or legislative related link. The list was
further culled to only include national, regional, or state-level
organizations in the United States. In other words, city and
county level organizations were excluded. Finally, the list was
expanded to include chapters of national organizations that met
the search criteria. This preliminary list consisted of 111
organizations. Of these 111 organizations’ Web pages, only 63
(57%) contained advocacy information. This study reports on
findings from the 63 Web sites that demonstrate an advocacy
agenda.

12. Data Collection
INSTRUMENTATION
The researchers created a data collection instrument based on a
review of the literature on Web 2.0 and Web site advocacy
effectiveness. The instrument contained items related to
communicating with policy makers, resource gathering,
information, and use of specific Web 2.0 technologies.
Generally, the tool determined the types of Web-based advocacy
activities in which the organizations engaged, and the extent to
which they used Web 2.0 for these tasks.
DATA GATHERING
Using the data collection instrument, we examined social work
advocacy organizations’ sites to determine how many and which
features are currently in use. With the exception of 10 Web sites
(16%), each Web site was reviewed by one researcher. The data
collected from the dually reviewed Web sites were compared to
ensure inter-coder reliability. By dividing the number of times
that the researchers agreed by the number of coding
possibilities, researchers determined an agreement rate of .91.
This rate exceeds the acceptable rate of .81 (Schutt, 2006). Each
researcher examined an equal proportion of study Web sites.
This review included Web sites related to the Clinical Social
Work Association, School Social Work Association, NASW,
and several other social work organizations. During the reviews,
a data collection form for each Web site was completed. The
researchers then entered the data into the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS). Researchers then used the software
PAGE 229
to create descriptive statistics for each study variable.
Researchers also performed Chi-square tests of association to
compare NASW with non-NASW organizations.
RESULTS
This section has two parts: the first details use of the various
Internet components first examining the use of Web 1.0
features, and then the use of Web 2.0 components. The second
part shows differences between general social work

13. organizations and state chapters of the National Association of
Social Workers. Results show a very limited use of Web 2.0
features on both NASW and non-NASW-related organizational
Web sites as of September 2009.
All Sites
This part of the article examines the data from all of the
organizations, breaking the results into the areas of
communicating with decision makers, gathering resources, and
disseminating information.
COMMUNICATING WITH DECISION MAKERS
Web sites can assist users in communicating with decision
makers in a number of ways. One way is to provide the name,
address, phone number, and fax number of legislators based on
the ZIP code provided by the site user. Another way is to
provide an e-mail form that the user could fill in and then send
a message directly to the decision maker without having to
leave the organization’s Web site. Typically, just over half of
the organizations in the study facilitated communication with
decision makers. For instance, 59% of organizations facilitated
identification of decision makers, asked Web site users to
contact decision makers, provided contact information for
decision makers, and provided guidance for how to contact
decision makers. On the other hand, only two organizations (3%
of the sample) used Web 2.0 technologies in performing these
tasks. In addition, 19% of Web sites provided templates for
writing decision makers. Only 6% of the sample did so using
Web 2.0 technologies, however.
GATHERING RESOURCES
Because of the rise of secure Web sites, it is very safe to use
credit cards or a third party service such as PayPal to transfer
funds from a Web site user to an organization. Many nonprofits
now include this ability on their Web sites in
PAGE 230
order to facilitate charitable donations to their organization. Of
the Web sites in the study, only 10 (11%) included components
for fund-raising (i.e., fundraising for an advocacy effort, fund-

14. raising for a political campaign, accepting online donations).
Only 2% of the sample used Web 2.0 technology for
fundraising. No Web sites included an online petition drive,
which is another type of resource—the resource of the number
of activists committed to a cause.
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION
The Internet is a fantastic place to find information, as whatever
is on the Web is available 24 hours a day, every day of the year.
The organizations in our study seem to understand this. An
overwhelming majority of social work organizations (90%)
provided Web site users with information to raise awareness
about an advocacy issue (just having information about the
organization does not qualify as information regarding an
advocacy issue). Only 2% of the organizations used Web 2.0
components. A majority of the Web sites provided users with
specific actions to take (54%), such as to write a letter or make
a phone call to a decision maker. Only 2% used Web 2.0 for this
purpose. Web site users could not rely on social work
organizations to provide a venue to interact with other
advocates. Only 11% of sites did this, and only 7% used Web
2.0 technology. Listserv contact information was located on
only 6% of the Web sites. Finally, only 6% of organizations
used their Web sites to collect survey data, and only 3% used
Web 2.0 for this purpose. About a quarter (21%) of the Web
sites provided summaries of legislation online, and 67% posted
general advocacy document on their sites. None of them used
Web 2.0 for this. Interestingly, only 65% of organizations
provided a statement of the organization’s point of view on
policies. A vast majority of Web sites (84%) provided access
freely to users without requiring a subscription. Only 35% of
Web sites allowed viewers to easily access this information
using a Web site search engine.
USING WEB 2.0
The study found a range in the types of Web 2.0 components
used by social work organizations. Eighteen percent of the Web
sites included a link to a social networking Web site. Blogs

15. were present on 16% of the Web sites in this study. Fourteen
percent of the sites included an option for sending a Web site
page content electronically to others. Only 6% of the sites had
social bookmarking options. RSS feeds and text message
components were present on 5% of the Web sites. Web sites
featured podcasts and tools facilitating inperson meetings (e.g.,
MeetUps) on 3% and 2% of sites, respectively. No Web sites
included virtual chats, instant messaging, or wikis (see Table 1)
PAGE 231
NASW Organizations versus Non-NASW Organizations
Given the results described above, we wondered whether the
widespread lack of use of the Internet’s capabilities might be
related to a lack of knowledge of what was available or a lack
of resources to implement the features. We hypothesized that
organizations that were associated with a national organization
might have access to better information and more resources.
Thus, we tested whether NASW chapters at the state level had
different levels of Web based advocacy components, including
Web 2.0 features. We find that a
PAGE 232
surprisingly stark distinction exists between NASW (n = 42)
and non-NASW organizations (n = 21) with regard to
engagement in Web advocacy.
COMMUNICATING WITH DECISION MAKERS
Over four-fifths of NASW organizations (83%) provided
contact information for decision makers while only 10% of non-
NASW organizations did the same. Guidance for how to contact
decision makers was provided by 81% of NASW organizations
while non-NASW organizations provided guidance in only 14%
of cases. NASW asked people to contact and facilitate
identification of decision makers in 79% of cases. Only 19% of
non-NASW organizations did this. All of these differences are
statistically significant at the p < .001 level. The difference was
less stark (and not statistically significant), regarding providing
templates for writing decision makers. NASW led with 21% of

16. its organizations doing so, and 14% of non-NASW
organizations did so.
GATHERING RESOURCES
No non-NASW Web sites fund-raised for advocacy efforts or
accepted online donations. On the other hand, 17% and 15% of
NASW organizations engaged in these activities respectively.
There was no difference in the percentages of NASW and non-
NASW organizations that fund-raised for a political campaign
(10%). None of these differences is statistically significant.
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION
Both NASW and non-NASW organizations overwhelmingly
provided Web site users with information to raise awareness
about advocacy issues (90%). NASW and non-NASW
organizations also do not differ greatly with regard to providing
a venue to interact with other advocates (10% and 14%
respectively). Non-NASW organizations (10%) exceed NASW
organizations (5%) in conducting surveys of site users. None of
these differences is statistically significant. The most
remarkable difference in information dissemination activities
relates to providing specific advocacy actions for site users to
take. Seventy-six percent of NASW organizations do this while
only 10% of nonNASW groups follow suit (p < .001). NASW
provided Web site visitors access to online documents at a
greater rate than non-NASW organizations (74% and 52%, p =
.023)). NASW also used a listserv for advocacy in more cases
(10% and 5%). Sixty-seven and 62% of NASW and non-NASW
organizations provided a statement of the organization’s point
of view, respectively. NASW provided more Web site
restrictions with 76% providing Web site access to members
only. All non-NASW Web sites provided unrestricted access to
advocacy information.
PAGE 233
Web site search engine. Only 24% of non-NASW Web sites did
the same (none of these last four variables has statistically
significant differences in results).
USING WEB 2.0

17. Twenty percent of NASW Web sites included a link to a social
networking Web site, 21% included an option for sending page
content electronically to others, 14% included videos, 10%
featured social bookmarking options, 7% had RSS feeds, 7%
had text messaging features, 5% used podcasts, and 2% featured
MeetUps. Conversely, none of these features were on nonNASW
Web sites. The only Web 2.0 components included on non-
NASW Web sites were blogs (10%; NASW 19%). Of these
variables, only the differences in having a social networking
site link and having options for sharing Web site information
are statistically significantly different (p < .05 in both cases).
(See Table 2 for a comparison of NASW and non-NASW
organizations.)
DISCUSSION
Social Work Organizations and Web Advocacy
Social work organizations make good use of their Web sites for
some advocacy activities, and grossly underutilize the Web
forum for others. For instance, more than half of the
organizations included in this study provided information that
would help social workers raise their awareness about social
issues, decide on specific actions to take, and communicate with
decision makers. This same proportion also posted advocacy
documents on their Web sites, made these documents available
to everyone, and presented the organization’s point of view on
policy issues. These functions allow social workers to connect
with policy makers in an informed manner, and this is an
important approach for influencing policy decisions
(JacksonElmoore, 2005). It is interesting to note that some Web
sites indicated that specific advocacy material is to be accessed
by members only. However, it is sometimes possible to view
this “hidden” information by using the Web site’s search engine
to locate it. On the other hand, social work organizations passed
on a significant opportunity to use their Web sites to gather
resources. This is particularly critical because Scanlon et al.
(2006) found that many social work organizations felt that they

18. did not have enough resources to perform more advocacy tasks.
In addition, Williams et al. (2007) discovered that organizations
with more financial resources engaged in more advocacy
activities. By not increasing revenue, social work organizations
are limiting their advocacy
PAGE 234
capacity. Despite this critical limitation, social work
organizations in this study perform more collective fund raising
than the nonprofit organizations in the Kenix (2007) study.
Organizations are also missing the opportunity to persuade and
mobilize social workers. Less than one quarter used their Web
sites to share legislative information, facilitate dialogue among
advocates, or capture information from social workers about
policy issues. In addition, just over half of organizations
provided readers with their positions on policy issues.
PAGE 235
This would be acceptable if the Web sites also provided a space
for social workers to engage in a critical dialogue to shape their
own views. This is not the case, however. As a result, social
workers are more likely to leave Web sites informed but
undirected. If organizations do not make a shift in these areas,
they will continue to respond to policy interventions rather than
shaping them. This study also uncovered considerable
differences between NASW and non-NASW organizations. The
infrastructure created by the national NASW office likely
accounts for much of this difference. For instance, the national
headquarters contracted with a Web design vendor to offer
discounts to chapters. Many of the chapters have taken
advantage of the reduced rates, and they have similar layouts as
a result. In addition, several of the chapters provide links to the
national entity’s advocacy materials. The access to this resource
allows chapters to focus on state issues rather than divide their
attentions between state and federal politics. Furthermore, many
chapters take advantage of the national organization’s
relationship with Capwiz. Several states use the vendor to

19. furnish legislative alerts and instructions for contacting elected
officials.
How Effectively Are Social Work Organizations Using Web
2.0?
Social work organizations clearly do not use Web 2.0 often for
advocacy. No Web 2.0 component was present in more than
one-fifth of the Web sites. Several technologies were wholly
absent, such as chats, instant messaging, and wikis.
Furthermore, when Web 2.0 is used, it is not used effectively.
Some blogs in study Web sites have never received a posting,
other blogs have not received a new posting for some time, and
additional blogs have been neglected and overrun with spam.
This study yields a more surprising finding, however. Social
work organizations do not actively use Web 1.0 to further their
advocacy efforts, either. Of the 111 social work organization
Web sites initially identified, only 63 (57%) contained any
advocacy material at all. Several of the Web sites that are coded
as containing advocacy material have only outdated advocacy
material. The political context is ever changing and social
workers must remain abreast of these changes in order to take
advantage of opportunities to affect change as they arise.
Overcoming Barriers to Web Advocacy
Several studies have identified barriers to use of technological
resources in Web-based advocacy (Cronk, 2007; Fine, 2007;
McNutt & Menon, 2008). These barriers include technology-
related anxiety, and fear of losing control of the advocacy
message. This section discusses these barriers in detail and
provides guidance for overcoming them.
PAGE 236
TECHNOLOGY-RELATED ANXIETY
Some agencies may hesitate to use Web 2.0 technology because
leaders may believe that it will require an expensive investment
in a technological infrastructure. Many organizations feel that
they do not have the technological experience, staff time, or
will to invest in a new infrastructure. Fortunately, many Web
2.0 components are available without cost. In addition, they

20. tend to be easy to use. Furthermore, many Web sites include
how-to videos and step-by-step guides (Fine, 2007). As a result,
social work organizations will likely find that that Web 2.0 use
does not require considerable resource commitment or skill
building.
FEAR OF LOSING CONTROL
Social work organizations may fear that allowing others to
create and edit publically available material on their Web site
will place the organization at risk. They may be concerned that
a user may post inappropriate, inflammatory, or false
information that will reflect negatively upon the organization
(Fine, 2007). Fortunately, Web 2.0 components contain fire
alarm features that allow users to monitor the Web site and
report any undesirable content to the Web site owner. In
addition, Web 2.0 use is widely understood, and users will be
able to discern user-generated content from that produced by the
organization
LIMITATIONS
The methods used in this study contain limitations because it
used nonrandom sampling and content analysis. Specifically,
researchers cannot be certain that they considered all social
work organizations for exclusion or inclusion in the sample. No
comprehensive list of social work organizations exists, so the
researchers chose to use purposive sampling to identify these
entities. Furthermore, researchers cannot assert that the sample
is representative of the population from which it was drawn.
Therefore, the purposive sampling employed in this study
precludes researchers from generalizing findings to all social
work organizations. As a result, inferential analysis should be
interpreted with caution. In addition, the quantification of
qualitative data during content analysis allowed for researcher
bias (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 1996). In other
words, it is possible that researchers interpreted Web sites
based on their own unique perspective. The presence of inter-

21. rater reliability in this study lessens the likelihood that bias
considerably influenced results.
PAGE 237
Are Advocacy Groups Using Web 2.0 Effectively?
IMPLICATIONS
In assessing the use of Web 2.0 technology by social work
organizations for advocacy, this study made unique
contributions to the social work and the Web advocacy bodies
of literature. Study researchers have identified several ways to
translate study findings for social work education, practice, and
research. A discussion of these implications follows.
Social Work Education
A study of licensed social workers indicated that nearly one-
half of respondents felt that they did not get training in their
social work programs that would allow them to effectively
utilize political interventions (Ritter, 2008). To prevent this
perception by future social workers, social work education
programs should provide students and faculty with training
related to electronic advocacy. In addition, social work students
should be given opportunities to become competent in electronic
advocacy through completion of course assignments (Dunlop &
Fawcett, 2008; Moon & deWeaver, 2005).
Practice
Social work organizations absolutely must increase their
prowess in an increasingly Web-based political environment.
Organizations with positions in direct opposition of those held
by the profession will prevail if social workers do not make
relevant and persuasive contributions to the online discourse. In
addition, social work organizations must support social
workers’ advocacy interventions through the provision of
information about decision makers, issues, and advocacy
opportunities.
Research
Social work researchers must continue to examine the use of
web advocacy and the use of Web 2.0 components. Such
research should translate into actions that organizations can

22. take to improve their advocacy effectiveness. Studies should
also inform organizations about the changing Internet advocacy
environment. This will keep practitioners aware of opportunities
and threats related to social justice policies
CONCLUSION
Web 2.0 technologies increase inclusion in political discourse,
accessibility of information, and the ability to form and
maintain relationships to strengthen 238 H. R. Edwards and R.
Hoefer advocacy efforts. All of these features are wholly
consistent with the profession’s ethical code. Despite the
considerable benefits of Web 2.0 advocacy, the social work
profession has been slow to adopt the new technologies. This
hesitation could be partly due to misinformation and limited
staff time. These challenges must be overcome in order to meet
the profession’s ethical mandate to engage in policy practice to
improve the lives of vulnerable populations.
References
Cronk, H. (2007). Pushing towards Web 3.0 organizing tools.
Social Policy, 38(1), 27–34.
Dunlop, J. M. & Fawcett, G. (2008). Technology-based
approaches to social work and social justice. Journal of Policy
Practice, 7(2), 140–154.
Fine, A. H. (2007). Web 2.0 assessment of the Overbrook
Foundation’s human rights grantees. New York, NY: The
Overbrook Foundation. Retrieved from http://
www.overbrook.org/resources/opn/pdf/Overbrook_Foundation_
Web2point0_ Report.pdf
Goldschmidt, K. & Ochreiter, L. (2008). Communicating with
Congress: How the Internet has changed citizen engagement.
Washington, DC: Congressional Management Foundation.
Retrieved from http://nposoapbox.s3.amazonaws.com/
cmfweb/CWC_CitizenEngagement.pdf
Hoefer, R. (2001). Highly effective human services interest
groups: Seven key practices. Journal of Community Practice,
9(3), 1–13.
Hoefer, R. (2005). Altering state policy: Interest group

23. effectiveness among statelevel advocacy groups. Social Work,
50(3), 219–227.
Hoefer, R. (2006). Advocacy practice for social justice.
Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books. Imperatore, C. (2009). What you
need to know about Web 2.0. Techniques: Connecting Education
& Careers, 83(9), 20–23. Jackson-Elmoore, C. (2005).
Informing state policymakers: Opportunities for social workers.
Social Work, 50(3), 251–261.
Kenix, L. J. (2007). In search of Utopia: An analysis of non-
profit Web pages. Information, Communication & Society,
10(1), 69–94.
MacManus, R. (2009, October 20). Web 2.0 summit opens:
Today’s revolution akin to Web 2.0 in 2004. Retrieved from
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/
web_20_summit_opens_todays_revolution_akin_to_web20.php
McNutt, J. G. (2006). Building evidence-based advocacy in
cyberspace: A social work imperative for the new millennium.
Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 3(3/4), 91. doi:
10.1300/J394v03n03•07.
McNutt, J. G. (2008). Web 2.0 tools for policy research and
advocacy. Journal of Policy Practice, 7(1), 81–85.
McNutt, J. G., & Menon, G. M. (2008). The rise of
cyberactivism: Implications for the future of advocacy in the
human services. Families in Society, 89(1), 33–38.
Miller, L. (2009). e-Petitions at Westminster: The way forward
for democracy?. Parliamentary Affairs, 62(1), 162–177.
Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Are
Advocacy Groups Using Web 2.0 Effectively?
Moon, S. S. & deWeaver, K. L.. (2005). Electronic advocacy
and social welfare policy education. Journal of Teaching in
Social Work, 25(1/2), 57–68.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (2008). Code
of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers.
Washington, DC: Author.
Rich, A. (2001). The politics of expertise in Congress and the
news media. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing

24. Limited), 82(3), 583.
Ritter, J. A. (2008). A national study predicting licensed social
workers’ levels of political participation: The role of resources,
psychological engagement, and recruitment networks. Social
Work, 53(4), 347–357.
Salcido, R. M. & Seek, E. T. (1992). Political participation
among social work chapters. Social Work, 37(6), 563–564.
Scanlon, E., Hartnett, H., & Harding, S. (2006). An analysis of
the political activities of NASW state chapters. Journal of
Policy Practice, 5(4), 41–54.
Schembri, A. M. (2008). www.why-social-workers-need-to-
embrace-Web2.0.com.au. Australian Social Work, 61(2), 119-
123.
Schutt, R. K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The
process and practice of research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Pine Forge Press.
Suarez, D. F. (2009). Nonprofit advocacy and civic engagement
on the Internet . Administration Society, 41(3), 267–289.
Teinowitz, I. (2008). Note to politicians: It’s not the spending,
stupid. Advertising Age, 79(11), 17.
Thackeray, R., Neiger, B. L., Hanson, C. L., & McKenzie, J. F.
(2008). Enhancing promotional strategies within social
marketing programs: Use of Web 2.0 social media. Health
Promot Pract, 9(4), 338–343.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (1996). Content
analysis: A methodology for structuring and analyzing written
material (No. PEMD-10.3.1).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Retrieved from http://archive.gao.gov/ f0102/157490.pdf
Walker, R. B. (1993). Inside/outside: International relations as
political theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, C. B., Foxman, E. R., & Saraswat, S. P. (2007). A
comparative study of nonprofit and for-profit Web-based issue
advocacy. Journal of Political Marketing, 6(1), 69–97.
Zhou, X., Chan, Y., & Peng, Z. (2008). Deliberativeness of

25. online political discussion: A content analysis of the Guangzhou
DailyWeb site . Journalism Studies, 9(5),759–770.