How do advocacy organizations representing people who are marginalized across multiple categories of their identity engage in policymaking? To answer this question, I conducted research in two stages. First, I interviewed 43 organizational leaders representing intersectionally marginalized survivors of gender-based violence,[1] people that are marginalized across multiple identities (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation). These interviews illuminated a unique practice that I call intersectional advocacy. Second, I conducted a large survey of organizations working in the area of gender-based violence.
What is intersectional advocacy and why does it challenge our current understandings of US policymaking? Intersectional advocacy occurs when organizations or individuals advocate for linkages between policies and issues that reflect the experiences of intersectionally marginalized groups positioned between more than one problem area. For example, an intersectional advocate would be one that pushes for amendments in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in a way that connects
these two distinct policy areas in order to provide survivors of violence without US citizenship status a way to access legal services, U-Visas, and housing benefits. Advocates that take on this approach are constantly thinking about how traditional law and policy systems fail to fully serve an intersectionally marginalized group like immigrant women when policies are isolated from one another. Meanwhile, to a woman without citizenship status experiencing gender-based violence where her partner leverages her status for abuse—policies on immigration and violence need to be connected for her to escape these circumstances.
Advocates recognize these gaps emerge when policy is designed for mainstream populations. One of the organizational leaders I interviewed explained: “We do not believe that there are master recipes or one-size-fits-all type[s] of [policy] solution[s] to the issue of domestic violence. When other folks come up with those type of models or type of solutions, we’re skeptical…when we’re working with communities of color.” She is one of the advocates leading the linking of policies between immigration and domestic violence. Ultimately, intersectional advocacy is a practice among organizations that encourages building connections between issues and policy areas that otherwise are separate from one another within the U.S. policy system. By bridging these policies, advocacy organizations are attempting to transform these systems to better serve and address the needs of people that are marginalized across multiple forms of identity (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, ability).
I wanted to understand what motivates advocacy groups to engage in intersectional advocacy. To do so, I examined the organizational characteristics and structures of these organizations. Despite many differences among these groups (e.g., location, size, mission, budget, issues of interest) I found there were four consistent organizational characteristics they shared:
- Leaders that substantially represented intersectionally marginalized groups;
- Prioritizing intersectionally marginalized populations in their mission, strategic plans, and advocacy;
- Participating in resource sharing and collaboration with broad networks of other groups focusing on issues outside their primary focus area; and
- Creative funding sources that enabled them to pursue policies and issues outside of gender-based violence.
The implications of my findings are important for understanding how to represent and advocate for populations that are marginalized across multiple axes of their identities. The organizations featured in this research illuminate a need for policy and programmatic approaches that link together issues like gender-based violence to other distinct problem areas. Survivors of violence marginalized across their gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and/or ability are uniquely positioned between multiple issues as a product of these intersecting identities. Organizations that are practicing intersectional advocacy understand this positionality and thus try to persuade government officials to support issue and policy linkages. Not all organizations participate in this form of advocacy. This research helps us understand what types of organizational characteristics are necessary for pursuing intersectional advocacy. By understanding the relationship between these characteristics, attitudes, and practices we can (1) better identify unique groups that are practicing intersectional advocacy and (2) support other organizations to take on these approaches.
How did I do my research?
This research began with a fundamental question: how do advocacy groups representing intersectionally marginalized groups engage in the policy process? To answer this question, I carefully selected four advocacy organizations across the United States representing these populations and asked to interview the majority of their leadership staff. Overall, I conducted 43 interviews across these four organizations. After coding the interviews to identify patterns between how they advocated for policy change and who they represented, I found that three of these organizations were engaging in what I now call “intersectional advocacy.” I took a closer look at these organizations and identified four consistent characteristics they shared that were connected to how they discussed their advocacy: (1) leadership, (2) representation, (3) networks, and (4) funding.
To understand the extent to which these characteristics shaped the practice of intersectional advocacy as a set of commitments and political action, I designed a survey instrument to ask organizations about their engagement as well as these organizational characteristics. The survey was administered to 234 advocacy organizations with a primary focus on gender-based violence. I then relied on survey results to examine the relationship between intersectional advocacy and the organizational characteristics I identified in the qualitative research. I measured intersectional advocacy as both a commitment/ attitude (i.e., that their work and approach is defined by issue and policy linkages) and an action (i.e., that their policy and work activities actively involve advocating for issue and policy linkages). Each model allowed me to examine the relationships between these outcome variables and the organizational characteristics I identified from the qualitative findings as being impactful for engaging in intersectional advocacy.
Measuring Intersectional Advocacy
Based on my interviews, I find that intersectional advocacy is a product of both (1) attitudes that shape political action among organizations and their members and (2) a behavioral outcome of identifying and successfully pressuring political officials to link together actual policies. The survey therefore included two different outcome measures for intersectional advocacy.
The first included an attitudinal measure to gauge the organization’s commitment to this practice. Participants were asked if they believed that their distinct issue area (i.e., gender-based violence) overlapped with additional issues, and if so, to specify them (e.g., immigration, poverty, housing). Participants were then asked what issues the survivors they represented faced and were given a list of options to choose from that included their distinct issue area (i.e., sexual assault, domestic violence) and a list of other issues that could possibly intersect with gender-based violence. Participants could either then only select their primary issue or select multiple issues to indicate an attitude reflecting an intersectional advocacy approach. Together, these two measures reflected the attitudes I observed from the qualitative research, which is that organizational leaders believe multiple issues overlap in the lives of intersectionally marginalized survivors.
The second outcome measured by the survey was political action among these organizations. Advocacy leaders were asked if they engage in political work that addresses issues outside of gender-based violence and to specify the specific issues they address. Additionally, leaders were asked which policy areas they focused on which included gender-based violence and additional issues outside of this area (e.g., LGBTQ rights, poverty, mass incarceration). By asking participants both about their political work more broadly and their policy advocacy directly, I was able to examine if organizations were participating in intersectional advocacy across a spectrum of political behaviors.
Results
Leading Intersectional Advocacy
Based on interviews with organizational staff, I observed that groups participating in intersectional advocacy were led by a CEO or executive director who substantially represented an intersectionally marginalized population. Substantial representation means that the leader prioritized this population in their decision-making, strategic planning, and advocacy Among leaders that also identified with the intersectionally marginalized group they represented, their diverse experiences were directly connected to their advocacy and work.
Among the 234 advocacy leaders that participated in the survey, there was a consistent and positive relationship between this form of leadership and engaging in intersectional advocacy. Specifically, the more participants rated the race/ethnicity and the sexual orientation of the CEO as an important aspect of the work they engaged in, the more often they selected additional issues overlapped with gender-based violence. Those that reported the race/ethnicity of the CEO was important to their work were most likely to identify additional issues outside of gender-based violence for which they advocated and engaged in policy activities. In other words, substantial representation of organizational leaders is related to groups taking on an intersectional advocacy approach to their work.
Representing Intersectionally Marginalized Groups
Organizations that prioritized the experiences of intersectionally marginalized groups in their work engage in intersectional advocacy. Among the 234 advocacy leaders that participated in the survey, the more they selected representing Latines and Asian American survivors as a priority, the more they reported an attitude of engaging in intersectional advocacy. Those representing Asian American women were most likely to report advocating for policies outside their distinct issue area (i.e., gender-based violence). These findings illustrate that there is a connection between representing survivors marginalized by gender and ethnicity and taking on an intersectional advocacy approach.
Finally, advocacy organizations that had a mission statement prioritizing an intersectionally marginalized group more often reported they believed survivors are affected by additional issues beyond gender-based violence. Prioritizing these groups in the mission statement and in who the organization represents results in organizations that hold intersectional advocacy attitudes and actions.
Networks & Issue Linkages
Networks mattered for the organizations I interviewed who participate in intersectional advocacy. I found these groups were enmeshed in wide networks of organizations pursuing a variety of issues outside of gender-based violence. These networks often led to collaboration, resource sharing, and co-sponsoring policy initiatives. Relationships with organizations that focused on distinct issues outside of gender-based violence were often times referred to as reasons why groups practiced intersectional advocacy.
Among the 234 advocacy leaders that participated in the survey, those that reported having these types of networks consistently held attitudes and participated in actions that reveal intersectional advocacy. The more organizations reported collaborating with other groups, the more they stated that they engaged in policy work around additional issues that overlap with gender-based violence. Organizations that share resources with groups outside their primary issue area also reported that additional issues beyond gender-based violence inform their advocacy and organizational work. Broad, resource-sharing, and collaborative networks with other advocacy organizations consistently map onto attitudes and actions affiliated with the practice of intersectional advocacy.
Funding Opportunities & Intersectional Advocacy
Finally, organizational leaders I interviewed explained how funding opportunities for practicing intersectional advocacy – in the form of governmental grants, fundraising that resulted in unrestricted funding, and budget advocacy – were all important sources for planning and executing intersectional advocacy.
Survey respondents also noted that these funding opportunities were also related to intersectional advocacy. The more governmental grants and fundraising funds organizations reported, the more they identified overlap between other issues and the gender-based violence that they try to address in their advocacy. Additionally, the more these groups engaged in budget advocacy, the more often they pursued policies outside their distinct issue area of gender-based violence. These findings reaffirm the value of financial resources in promoting intersectional advocacy.
Summary and Implications
Advocacy organizations are complex groups to understand, and yet they play a pivotal role in shaping policymaking in American politics. If we are interested in supporting more equitable policymaking processes and outcomes, understanding the practice of intersectional advocacy is essential. This research highlights what organizational characteristics can support intersectional advocacy. In doing so, we can better identify these unique advocacy groups that are profoundly shaping the policymaking process for intersectionally marginalized populations, as well as support other organizations with similar aspirations by encouraging and incentivizing these organizational characteristics. The table below summarizes these characteristics to help us identify these groups as well as provide an organizational road map for advocates seeking to take on this approach.
Organizational Characteristics for Intersectional Advocacy
| Characteristic | Practice |
|---|---|
| Leadership | Substantively representing intersectionally marginalized groups by prioritizing intersectionally marginalized groups in the mission statement, strategic planning, and evaluation of organizational goals |
| Representation | Making an effort to represent a diverse group of constituents that are marginalized across more than one identity axis and understanding how this positionality affects their experiences with issues |
| Networks | Resource sharing with networks of other organizations and advocacy groups working on issues outside the primary advocacy issue but that also intersect in the lives of people marginalized across more than one identity |
| Funding and Resource Allocation | Accessing unrestricted funds and resources that can be more easily allocated to issues outside of the primary problem groups are trying to solve |
Measuring Intersectional Advocacy Outcomes
| Attitudes/ Commitments | Political Actions |
|---|---|
|
Attitude #1: Intersectionally marginalized survivors are experiencing more than one issue at one time. Attitude #2: Distinct policy issues overlap in the lives of intersectionally marginalized groups and need to be addressed together if these groups are to be free from all of these concerning public issues. |
Action #1: Organizational work more broadly (e.g., services, programmatic interventions, fundraising, and advocacy) addresses more than one issue at a time. Action #2: Policies are linked together across distinct issue areas in order to address how groups can be positioned between multiple issues simultaneously. |
The organizations practicing intersectional advocacy cannot alone transform U.S. policy institutions. They need help. Policymakers, organizational leaders, concerned stakeholders, and elected officials can all play a role in supporting intersectional advocacy. There are many ways to support this practice:
- Donating and contributing to existing groups taking on this approach,
- Reinforcing policy agendas and issue linkages proposed by these groups,
- Applying the organizational characteristics presented in this report to take on this practice, and
- Creating structures and opportunities within the policymaking process that support this approach.
Intersectional advocacy is a powerful shift in how the U.S. policy system represents intersectionally marginalized populations and organizations need help with this transformation!
Want to Learn More?
Additional research on intersectional advocacy can be found in my upcoming book: Intersectional Advocacy: Redrawing Policy Boundaries Around Gender, Race & Class. The book is forthcoming this year and will be published by Cambridge University Press.
Suggested Citation: Perez Brower, Margaret. 2023. “Intersectional Advocacy: Organizations Connecting Issues Together Through Policy.” Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
[1] Gender-based violence refers to harm against a person or group of people because of their perceived sex, gender, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity. The advocacy organizations presented in this report focus on two types of gender-based violence: domestic or intimate partner violence and sexual assault.